tv Public Affairs CSPAN July 1, 2013 12:00pm-5:00pm EDT
borders. isn't that a reasonable strategy? , on the total other side -- my gosh, the iranians are all in, the russians are there, hezbollah is there. are we going to lose? do we really want iranians to win here? should on shouldn't the fundamental prime directive to use star trek terms be to ensure that they do not win and do whatever is necessary to make sure that the terrible calamity does not happen? gentlemen? >> that is not the first time i have had this discussion. it has a certain coldhearted calculus to it. we have the sworn enemies of the united states. they have killed americans over all fighting each
other. and doesn't this sound great?it goes back to the situation of that would all work until it doesn't work. that work until that conflict becomes uncontainable within the current boundaries of that arena. i argued that earlier. i think it becomes difficult to contain that. what you end up doing is destroying a country and expanding politically extremism among the three different areas. i do not think that is something in our interest. making this more dangerous, we are looking at turkey, jordan, making, lebanon and iraq.
this more dangerous is i do not feel comfortable or safe at all and don't think that this kind of battle with these kinds of groups taking place is going in centered around an area where we have the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the middle east. i realize most assessments are that they are in regime hands. we cannot guarantee that going forward. a lot of things are loaded into shells that can be fired. as is not stuff that can easily be kept under lock and key. i think that has a number of downside risks to it. that supercharges it, and sends it, in many ways, global. that is a reason president obama outlined it as a direct threat will stop -- threat. there are many reasons it was a
direct threat. as the conflict expands, what i am worried about -- it is feasible that going forward, we could have boundaries in place in a de jour sense, but in a de facto sense, it will be part of the greater syria that many people talk about what probably do not really want. that in itself, the destabilization of the northern provinces of jordan, in its self, i think, is a threat, and that area being politically gettingwith extremists. pointk post earlier --i think i say it in the article directly. if not, i will say it here. in a way, in most ways, this is a political operation using military means, because we are
shaping a rapidly changing environment. that, in and of itself, like mark said, makes this much more complicated and hard. one thing i would add to that is that, of the four steps i outlined -- all of these do not have to go in order, and we do not have to do all of them at the same time. the great challenge of leadership, going forward in the region -- i guess i learned this lesson a bit from, i hate to say it, the iranians, and watching our adversaries battle with us. they are very good at looking at the full dashboard of options, turning this knob and throwing this switch. they are very good at that. obviously, they do not have public pressure to go up the escalation change. in the end, they can do what they want. often, we get locked into a
situation where we believe we have to go all-in. i do not think that is what is going to win it in syria, necessarily.it might at a certain point. there are a lot of unknowns, here. it is going to be a much more complicated situation. in israel, a very senior security intelligence official, who i respect very much, as many of you know -- he said to jeff white and i, at a military base in the end of the day, when we were all thinking about this crisis -- he said, this is the most complicated challenge that israel has ever faced.and the idf. i was sort of taken aback. this is a country that has faced a lot of challenges. he said, i did not say it was the worst. i said it was the most complicated. and we are nowhere close to the
end of it. i do not think it is just the united states. our allies, such as israel, think along similar lines. >> good questions. i want to emphasize that i agree with a lot of andrew's recommendations. he has a good and useful politics-first approach to this, with military actions and arming in support of the political objectives. i recommend that. i did not mean to say that you did not. others, not so much, but i think that is important. i do not agree with your question to andrew or to me. i do not agree with lead it out -- with the bleed it out -- and let them fight it out, hezbollah and al qaeda are killing each other. they are not simply killing each other. they are killing thousands of syrians and doing all of the other things we have been talking about. it is also not a zero-sum game. the rock, paper idea that you could kill all the bad guys is
silly. you are exacerbating the radicalization process elsewhere. this is not zero-sum. one of the most worrying things about what has been happening is the way that this is turning into very much a regionwide and even internationalized sectarian campaign, this sunni jihad, like we saw in bosnia and others, using media, using mosques, using religious networks to mobilize people and to get them to provide money to come and fight. it is not just jihadists doing these things. it is the mainstream, the ones we are working with. think about it like little kernels of popcorn.
some of them might come over and die in syria, but more and more of them are popping all over the region. the notion that there is a fixed number of these guys you can kill is just wrong. on the other side, are we really -- letto let iran man? iran win? this gets to the nub of the question of overall strategic goals. we have not decided, as a government, as a policy community. i think people really disagree. is syria a civil war which needs to be solved, or is it a front in a regional war against iran that needs to be won? these are different things. the steps that might need to be taken to find a transition in syria are not the ones you would take if what you want to do is to bleed iran and fight it out, and the like. understanding what that strategic objective is is going
to be difficult. it gets back to the point i was making before. i think we do not agree with our allies. the jordanians and the turks probably want to solve the problem, which is threatening to overwhelm their countries. the saudis would probably be happy to keep fighting. to them, the strategy you are describing makes perfect sense. what do we think? i think we have not really articulated it. >> let's open the floor to your questions. we will start with tom. then, we will go in the far back. when you get the microphone, make sure you identify yourself will stop that would be great. >> this is a fascinating discussion, sort of like the war itself. there will not be a winner for a while. there was a similar discussion at a conference in houston.
when you get that far outside the beltway, you hear different ways of looking at this. one of the speakers presented this argument. these arrangements, far from haveg security architecture, been an artificial overlay imposed by outsiders, that have prevented the inevitable sorting out that ought to have taken place after the collapse of the ottoman empire in the 1920's. the colonials prevented it from happening, and cold war constraints stopped it from happening. it is happening now, and we should step out of the way until there is a winner. i take it you do not agree with that. >> i do not agree with it. i think the reason why i see it as a major concern is because a lot of things have happened since the boundaries were drawn. nations, imperfect as they are often times, were built.
armies were raised. in the case of syria, i think this is really important. they also bought and produced the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the middle east. the breakup of syria, i think, threatens a lot of that other architecture. the downsides of this breaking down are, i believe, so great on so many different levels that it would create a political and military chaos. it would actually probably lead to the great armageddon we are probably trying to avoid. that is the reason i would like to keep it contained within syria. it is pretty straightforward. that might not all occur.maybe there might be some areas of reason why a wrote
this article is clear. i see the chernobyling of syria as a threat to u.s. interests on a number of levels. that architecture is 100 years old, for better or for worse. i think letting everybody get it out of their systems is not wise. we might not be able to control everything. mark is right. i think you all know that subheading is just the way it goes when you publish something. as much as we can shape that, i think that is very important for our assets in the region. >> in the far back. >> thank you. my name is edward joseph, with johns hopkins. i agree with the previous it is absolutely a terrific event. i would like to take up the challenge to give you an example of where arming insurgents made a decisive difference.
of course, that is bosnia, 1995. actually, beginning 1994. the arming, and i would underscore the training, of croats in particular, and bosnian forces, were the key determinant, not nato airstrikes. it was the improvement in capacity of the ground forces that made the difference on the ground that wrought the serbs to -- that brought the serbs to the negotiating table seriously at dayton and made that agreement possible. of course, there were many differences. with someone i am sure you are familiar with, elizabeth -- she and i have written an article that examines the differences and similarities between bosnia and syria. among them -- this is to get to andrew's point that syria has over five times the population,
meaning you have to have on the order of 500,000 to 600,000 casualties to have the same relative impact you had in bosnia. my question to andrew is, mark has made -- >> we are going to have to hold it there. >> may i ask a question quickly? if intervening is futile, do you agree? can you address that point? >> stop. stop.[laughter] >> ok. bosnia. i am glad you mentioned bosnia and did not confuse it with kosovo, like some columnists. yes, you are right. what tipped the balance in bosnia was the arming of the croatian military, and their conventional victory against serbian forces.as
the creation of safe areas, which grew to be unenforceable, airstrikes which proved to make little difference to the resolution of the conflict. it was only the full-scale arming and victory of the croatian army that did the trick. i am not sure who you envision playing the role of the croatian army in this scenario. but it was not the arming of bosnian insurgents. it was the arming of conventional military, which won a conventional military victory. at the end of that conventional military victory, there was the dayton process, in which we took milosevic and legitimated him in power, made him a key part of the solution, and he only shows up in the hague many years later. what it involved was agreeing to the partition of the country, and legitimating the role of the architect of the massacres, being willing to wine, dine, and drink whiskey with the guy, and
not seek international justice. and basically having that be enforced through a major international peacekeeping operation, with the overt acceptance of russia and the neighbors. if you are willing to go all the way and envision assad's role similar to milosevic tom up finding someone to play the role of the croatian army, avoiding international justice, and giving bashar that role, that is a plausible path, but i am not sure it is the one most people have in mind. it is a good thought experiment to work through, i am not sure it has the lessons that some people might think. >> a couple of questions over here. >> thank you. a daily newspaper. a quick question to mark. was the president precipitous in saying that assad must go,
painting himself into a corner with diplomacy? to andrew, is geneva ii dead, for all practical purposes? thank you. >> andrew, once you start, you can get in your last comment during the question. >> arming the rebels. i do not think it is a futile exercise. however, as you noticed, the recent announcement was to arm the supreme military council, which is essentially the armed affiliate of the syrian opposition coalition. that organization was created around the same time, secretly, off in the wings. we have a paper coming out from the washington institute that tracks a little bit of this. overall, the smc includes defectors from the syrian military, people i have met.
the problem is, in my opinion, given we have seen gross extremism in the opposition ranks, is, in the smc are a number of leaders who are closer politically and in terms of common cause with extremists than the u.s. government. the weapons that are provided by those channels could leak out. they could leak out through other channels. a lot of things happen when you move weapons through a check point. people in lebanon told me how that used to work. offloading of weapons is a very, very common one. that is my first. this is also very important. this is also where i take issue with the administration. in my opinion, geneva ii was
dead when the team that was negotiating this in geneva took what was not a bad text, and took it to st. petersburg, and met with putin, and changed the language that said all of this has to be agreed on by mutual consent. it seemed like a diplomatic way to get this through, and it was. but it made it unenforceable. you have to get assad to agree to go himself, which he is not going to do. at the time, it was seen as a check i the opposition on the regime calculations in this process. i think it gives this process, if we continue with it -- gives assad that lease on life, and he will continue. i have covered two syrian elections in my life, and it was not pleasant.
and they were begging me to vote, with blood from my thumb. as funny as that was, there is a less than zero chance that anybody else will win if he runs in 2014, or if they oversee that transition. it will take a lot more than that, or some american center that runs the elections. --agree that a true transition i agree with the administration. a true transition means we move it from this little cabal of people to a group of people that represent the demographic differences inside of the country, and those have changed over time. getting there is tough. i do not see the meeting happening soon, because it seems like the united states and russia are still at odds, which would keep it from happening. >> was the president too precipitous? >> yes.
there was pressure at the time to take a forceful position that assad must go. i wrote a piece, "expellus assadum," the idea that this was a magical phrase that would make this happen. it created a set of expectations which could not be met. i think that on all sides -- most of us, i think, miscalculated assad's ability to survive. my calculation was that as long as it was a peaceful uprising being butchered, assad could not survive because of the moral force of nonviolent protest, what this would do to the syrian middleground. once it turned into a military confrontation, my estimate of his likely survival went way up.
people who wanted early military intervention also misjudged. the idea that at first sight of a nato jet, assad would run for the hills was clearly not right. it was a descriptive statement, assad must go. that is a reasonable analytic judgment. as a declarative statement by the president, it probably should not have been made. >> ken, stanley, and then the way back. >> thank you for a terrific discussion. andrew, i have a question about chemical weapons and the so- called red line that has allegedly been crossed. the iraq war, there was a great deal of evidence presented to congress and the united nations, resented to the public, of iraqi
weapons of mass distraction. in this case, we have a declaration by the president. we do not have anything presented to congress, classified or unclassified. we have the head of eu diplomacy saying that their analysis is that the rebels used chemical weapons. what is the evidence? why hasn't the administration presented it? >> in the front. >> this is a good book aims to that question. sun tzu, in "the art of war," said, "know your enemy and know yourself." would the american people be willing to support whatever is necessary? do you not have to view what the american people would support now? >> i do not know if that is a question to me or not. in the back.
>> i want to get mark and andrew to answer each other. tell us what happens when mission creep happens, like mark was talking about. what happens if we do not follow the issue, and the syrian war continues to get out of hand, and no-fly zones are not enough? and mark, if you could let us know -- answer andrew's main concern, which is what happens when this becomes much more regional. >> why don't we start from that? this is going to be the final round of questions. gentlemen? >> i am glad mona asked me a question. look -- like i said, i expect this to be a long-term war which is increasingly international and shapes the entire region. i have no illusions about that.
think arab states are more resilient than we often think they are. i think when a rock was at its iraq was at its worst, a lot of people thought something similar would happen. and it did not. i am shocked, in some ways, that the kurds have not left iraq yet. that speaks to the resilience and power of that supposedly fragile state structure. interestingly -- with lebanon, i feel like lebanon and syria are so interrelated that i actually think there is a very high chance -- i am surprised there has not been more spillover from syria into lebanon, more fighting in lebanon than we have already seen, and unfortunately, i suspect that will happen, especially now that has a lot is involved.-- especially now that hezbollah is involved. i think jordan is ok. jordan, for better or for worse,
has long experienced flows of refugees, endemic security threats. we should support them, but i am not as worried about jordan. turkey will also pretty much be ok. i am worried about iraq. iraq has its own internal issues. maliki's creeping authoritarianism.going on for a long time. all that stuff is constant. increasing flows of weapons back and forth is deeply worrying, and does introduce a factor. i do not know how responsive to your question that is. the spread of the many ways this might play out, that is the one that worries me most, the spillover into iraq. >> it is a good question. the obama administration, from my understanding of internal deliberations and some that
leaked out to the press, was concerned because of the slamdunk we had on iraq, and the embarrassment that comes from that, and the miscalculation that came from that, and so on. they were very cautious about that from the beginning. they really wanted to make sure. the assessments of the united states are shared by the uk and france. the arab allies, i am not sure. israel, i think, also share that assessment. it might be based on something slightly different, simply because i heard from israeli circles earlier. it was not only based on accounts and interviews with those inside of the country. they were involved in bringing out doctors who were treating those patients, individuals who had been exposed to those agents, and i believe corpses as well.
i am not sure on the last detail. they tested those individuals and those bodies, and found they were exposed to low doses of sarin. there is probably more evidence, given there would be other ways to go about it. i think obama's language, with a high degree of certainty -- i think that was the language he used. the fact that this came out of the white house is not insignificant, given how hesitant they were for this slamdunk to recur, so to speak. what happens with mission creep? i think what happens there is leadership. i know that is a really casual thing to say. i am not saying this from a partisan standpoint, because i am from the same party as the president. you look at what happens. you look at what is happening inside of the country. you turn one knob off and turn another knob up, instead of
automatically going up the escalation chain. your political opponents often pound you for being a wimp. that is the way democracy often works. in this case, given the complexities of it, i think the president is going to have to find a way to navigate all of that. the american public is cautious. they are cautious now, given the way they believe it is affecting them and it has been articulated by the leadership. part of leadership is framing the issues and the risks accordingly, so that when an increase in those risks to the country occur, the american public is ready for it, and ready to do what is necessary. right now, we do not know what those are. for all of this to go on, in the neighborhood where we have 65% of world oil reserves and 75% of -- 40% of gas reserves -- risks can
spread. i grew up in a community where oil was discovered in the 19th century. the lesson we learned in history class was, the important part of oil is not the supply, necessarily. it is the price. that is another way this could affect everyday americans, beyond, for example, this spilling out and affecting our regional allies, such as israel, and i believe it will, or other allies, such as jordan. we would have to respond accordingly. i outlined in this piece what i believe are assertive and measured steps. not aggressive steps, but assertive ones i think can shape this conflict. >> thank you. i wanted to echo the last comment. my own view, for what it is worth -- i find all these polls about america's interest in engaging irrelevant, in the
sense that if the leadership of the united states has not explained to the american people whether it is important or not, one certainly should not expect average voters to think it is important. the real poll will be when and if the leadership says it is important. then, we will be able to judge whether people think it is important, but we are not there yet, and we may not be there. that, i think, is the end result of this debate. we still do not really know what the overall strategy is, although we have a reasonable consensus on what to do, even in the absence of a strategy, which is really fascinating. on that note, thank you for joining us today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]
at eight up tonight :00, an event with southwest airlines' ceo on air travel in this country. he takes questions from an audience of the university of denver. then we will take your calls to get your thoughts on the subject and ask you what advice he gives the hetero government to improve air travel in the united states. we recently asked the same question at reagan national airport airport. here is what people had to say. >> i think the most significant thing that i have seen over the past year -- i travel every the weaker the most significant thing i see is obviously the security checkpoints are crazier. having more preflight checks and more cities be on the major metropolitan areas would be fantastic. and linking that up against potentially increased number of routes for cheaper prices, i think that is significant, too.
a last-minute traveler like i am, you pay a significant amount of money as compared to a few months ago. those are the big things i would like to see, more regulations across the pricing metrics for the government, especially the," -- especially the consolidation of american and us airways. beyond that, security checkpoints, getting through those quicker. would be my advice. >> with the fares him a i live in detroit and fly mostly d. i mean, there could be an almost $600 difference in certain flights from detroit to philadelphia. the airfares are all over the board. seems to me they could do a better job of regulating the fares and standardized thing -- standardizing the fares. more seats in the plane as well. it is crowded enough. what we have now is ok. anymore would not be good.
>> do you think there is a role for the government in all of this? make any new rules or any new regulations that would help that? >> i think all these airlines merging has been a detriment to the general population. i think travelers are at their mercy now. with fewer carriers and let's see available, they can charge higher prices. particularly business travel. the fares are outrageous. the cost so much more to do business now. canink the government regulate the airfares. i think it would be in their best interest to do so. and make the standing in line experience going little bit smoother and quicker. >> again, we will get your thoughts on the same questions tonight following remarks from the southwest airlines' ceo. 8:00 p.m. eastern right here on c-span. coming up in just under half an hour, former hewlett packard ceo carly furey and that talks about her work as chair of good 360.
a group of companies donating to charity. live coverage from the national press club starts at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. until then, a conversation on irs budget cuts and other tax issues from this morning's "washington journal." with the irs and the news quite a bit lately, we turn to nina olson, national taxpayer advocate. i appreciate you coming on. for those of you who have not heard of the national advocate service, tell us a bit about what your work is and how you're connected to the irs. guest: my office was created by statute in the 1980's, amended in 1998. we are charged by congress to help taxpayers solve their thenems with the irs and take administrative and legislative recommendations to
mitigate those problems. i have about 75 offices around the country, at least one in each state. that is required by law. i have about 1900 employees now who helps all taxpayer problems. host: are you funded as part of the irs or as a separate entity? irs.: we are part of the in order to help taxpayers with cases, we have to have access to the taxpayer information. if we were in the treasury department, there would be a big hole in the privacy laws to protect taxpayer information. to 300,000ut 225,000 cases a year of individual and business taxpayers that we get in to help. host: you have done this for 12 years. is it an appointment process? guest: i am appointed by the secretary of treasury. i was appointed by larry summers on2001. i showed up to work
march 1, 2001. i already had my second president and second treasury president. host: one of your job is to do a midyear report on the irs. in this year's report, you refer to the irs as an institution in crisis. irs has think that the actually been shrinking over the years as its workload has been growing. it's a workload has not just been core tax administration where it's job is to audit taxpayers, collect taxes. it collects over 90% of the federal revenue, about $2.52 trillion a year which is a lot of money. in addition to that, it is now the administrator of the second largest anti-poverty program in the country. it administers an enormous number of payouts to taxpayers .ased on the individual side some taxpayers have received the make work pay credit, the
economic stimulus stimulant. the first time a buyer credit, the refundable adoption credit. on the business side, a large number of benefits. now we have health care coming down the line. it has really changed over the last couple of decades into not just a revenue collector but also the benefits administrator. host: one of the big issues in the news of the irs is this targeting of conservative groups. what insight can you share? how did you find out? guest: i found out about it like everybody else did, listening to lois lerner presenting something at an american bar association conference. if we went back and reviewed out of the 915,000 cases that we received since january 1, 2010, there are only 19 cases dealing (c) (4)'s.(3) or
ino think that what we did our june report that we just released his we issued a special report in which we provided an analysis. we do not have investigatory staff. you know, we are not like the inspector general for men nor are we conducting an investigation like the hill. there are six concurrent congressional investigations. an fbi investigation. i think people do not need another person poking and at that level. so what we did is we really take a look at our work and we look at what we know about the functioning of the organization and what we understand about the law. we made 16 very concrete, actionable recommendations to prevent this from happening again. callswe are taking your and questions this morning with nina olson, your national taxpayer advocate. she is here to answer your questions. .epublican line --202-585-3881
.emocrats -- 202-585-3880 202-585-3882.-- from baltimore, maryland. you are on. olson. hello, ms. i want to question a point that you made about the irs having a reduction in cost. if anybody goes to new carrollton, they will find a building right next to the irs building, which is already huge, big is the pentagon, there is a building almost as large and has 110by csc which thousand employees all doing irs 110,000 -- which has
employees all doing irs business. how does that result in the total number of people? guest: you make a good point about the use of contractors. i do think that contracting has been reduced. in terms of the new carrollton federal building, the irs has had a reduction of employees by know, 5%do not already. needs to be -- now it is down to 87,000 employees. 13,000 human beings that are no longer working for the irs. i think what you see, using new carrollton as an example, is the centralization of irs employees on certain large sites. i actually have a problem with that. what is being reduced to some of the more local offices, and i have a problem with that because i believe that if you have the irs out of the community that it is better for the irs and better for the taxpayers, because then they are members of the
community where they are forced to relate to taxpayers am a given the economic conditions that they are experiencing in their community. what we have now is our employees being centralized in large sites around the country. although there are members of their own community in that area, they have no idea what is going on necessarily in the rest of the country or connection to the rest of the country. i think that shows up in a way that we deal with taxpayers on the phone. and we do not deal well with taxpayers face-to-face. our understanding of taxpayers leads to more experiences. the numbers show that the irs has had significant attrition and that our staff has been reduced significantly, even as our workload, and this is my point -- i mean, you can have reductions in staff because of efficiency and productivity if our workloads stayed the same. but our workload has grown enormously. the reason i make this point, and it might sound strange for somebody who is a taxpayer
advocate, i point about this is that if the irs has less resources to serve taxpayers, what it will do is turn to more automation, less human contact, less being available on the phone, poor taxpayers service, and that will harm taxpayers. when someone is calling up trying to get in touch with the irs in order to get them to not levy or explain circumstances, there will not be anybody there to pick up that phone. that is a bad thing and will harm taxpayers. that is why i am talking about this. it is going to harm taxpayers. as a you referred to this tendency towards dehumanization. explain that. guest: my earlier point was about automation. as the irs looks to save money and do more with less almond and wonderful phrase, it turns -- more with less, that wonderful phrase, it turns to automation. tax is messy, and taxpayers do
not have clean, neat, tidy lives. they make mistakes or they have a situation that has never been encountered before. the irs needs to talk to these people and find out the facts and circumstances and be able to help them. with host: automation, you are not able to. host:how many employees does the irs have? 87,000.bout i do not know the number of contractors. i have seen the contracts shrink. i have felt that there is a big issue about contracting out a lot of our work. several years ago there was an initiative to contract out our collection action ford that collection agencies, and i was disturbed about that one because i think collecting taxes is an inherently governmental function that needs to be done by federal and fully use. and i questioned the efficacy. in the numbers showed that it was not very effective. we were paying commissions to private collectors. host: she has been in this job
since march of 2001, national taxpayer advocate, leads the nationwide organization of approximately 2000 taxpayer advocate that help u.s. taxpayers resolve problems and work with the irs to correct procedural problems. au're a media report has number of recommendations for the irs. does the irs or congress have to respond to the report? guest: the irs does. i summit recommendations to a commissioner. by law, he has to respond to them in writing within 90 days. the recommendations we make in our annual report, we have about a 55% agreement rate. in my december report where we actually make legislative recommendations, congress has a pretty good track record of at least acting upon it. they hold a hearing or someone drops a piece of legislation. it is not necessarily that they
get and acted. it depends on whether congress is enacting legislation. there has not been a lot of legislative activity on the tax side lately. irs. questions on the this is from twitter -- why has the government given so much power to the irs? all governments, particularly a democratic government, does not exist without taxes. there are only certain ways for government to raise funds. one of them is taxes. the agency that collects those taxes is the internal revenue service. law, the most powerful creditor in the united states. it can do things that any private creditor would have to go to a court and show that it has the right to do. the supreme court has said all taxes are the lifeblood of government. therefore, the government agency that collects them should have the power to do things that
would not hold up that lifeblood coming in. i have also said that the money that we're giving up are the lifeblood of the taxpayers and we need balance and protections. host: some believe the irs should be abolished. by petern article morrissey, professor a universally -- university of maryland business school. a writes, the irs is not neutral tax collecting institution but a collection of grassroots activists using unchecked power to the store the personal reputations and finances of those who oppose liberal ideas and inflict terror on ordinary americans to the arbitrary and capricious interpretation of tax rules and onerous audits. that is his take on the irs if you want to respond. one, if you do want a government, and some people may
want to abolish the government entirely, but if you want the government, unit got to bring in revenue. if that is the case, you're going to bring it in through taxes as opposed to the government owning businesses. you will have to have an agency to collect it. so getting rid of this irs, you will have to replace it with some kind of agency that collects. i believe that the irs has the power to destroy lives. that is why i exist. that is why congress created my job and the people who work underneath me. it is to protect taxpayer rights. i have to say that i practiced before the irs for 27 years, since 1975, before i came in 12 years ago to this position. i have not seen any group of people trying to go after any one group of people for their political beliefs, and that includes what i have observed or
read in the inspector generals report. i have, however, represented taxpayers, and in this job, looked for taxpayers who advocated for taxpayers were the irs' actions had the power to destroy their business, destroy their lives. these are the powers that congress has given it, but there are also very important taxpayer rights to check those powers. my job is to make sure those rights are respected. host: a question on twitter -- who are the majority of people audited by the irs? guest: the highest percentage of people audited now are the people who make over $1 million. the next highest are the lowest income you receive the earned income tax credit. there is about a 1% audit rate of individual taxpayers. your chance of getting audited is very, very minimal. that is like what the irs counts
as the legal audit rate in the sense of where they go into your books and records. there is a bunch of other activity but the irs does, what i call unreal audits, which brings the audit rate up much higher. it could be that you made a mistake on your return that is inconsistent from one page to be next and they send you notice saying they are correct thing it unless you disagree. ror, but it goes way beyond math. 1099 formyou have a of interest income and you left it off your return, they will say we notice this does not match. if you agree, disagree, and if you do not respond, we will change. they do not call it all and audit because they are not going into your books and records. there is a lot of activity there. talking to nina olson, your national taxpayer advocate. lidia, maryland, democratic line. caller: good morning.
the idea is to abolish the irs is ridiculous, not going to happen. you advocate for taxpayers. who advocates for the workers of the irs? directorching a former of the cincinnati office who said that that office that works on the 50 c three -- 501(c)(3) taxes is always understaffed and the workers are overworked. he said that is one of the problems. that the number of tax-exempt organizations that apply for tax-exempt status have ballooned in the past 10 years. and the staff of that office has not increased. so who advocates for these workers that have been accused of all kinds of crimes when they are overworked? a lot of applications that are not fully filled out. the internal revenue service has
theged exclusively for primary. who gave them the authority to change that status? host: this training issue and staffing issue is something you talk about in your report. yes, the employees and cincinnati obviously have their own attorneys and things like that. but since about 2005 i have been pointing out in my december report to congress where i am told i law to identify 20 of the most serious problems that the and governmental entities organizations, specifically the exempt organizations unit, has been understaffed in many, many ways. two that are directly relevant to this particular issue. one is the exempt organization unit had been getting, since 2007, anince
increasing number of applications. slow07, i identified the cycle time in handling 501(c)(3) applications because the (c )(4)'s were not a large number. back withrt i quote the irs said back to us. , this willo, no, no be fine once we get through our backlog, we do not need any more staffing. they never got through their backlog, and they never hired new staffing. for years i have advocated there are only nine people in the irs who are responsible for educating and conducting outreach to the entire organizational sector, a huge sector of our economy. it controls lots of trillions of
dollars. we have nine people to educate them about what their role is? if you see the lack of understanding of what 501(c) (4 )'s are supposed to be doing, it is significant. the law clearly says that charitable organizations, and it said that since the beginning of that there have to be operated exclusively for either charitable or social welfare, general welfare purposes. host: in order to qualify -- taxt: to qualify for exemption. the supreme court said at one point that a single non- charitable purpose that was substantial would disqualify you. so sort of by implication, they have said you can have an
insubstantial nonexempt purpose -- you can do something else, and congress second and that several years later i enacting several calls in unrelated tax, recognizing that exempt organizations might even have some business income on the side, a nonexempt purpose, and they would pay tax on that. that is followed up with some court cases and also regulation. then revenue ruling. regulations and revenue ruling are issued by the treasury department of which the irs is part. that they have to be operated primarily,, meaning and that is very hard to understand. but that has been the evolution of the laws, saying that primarily there can be some nonexempt activities going on that would be subject to tax or that they could be doing some nonbusiness activities that
would not be for social welfare, that does not answer the question about how much. i think that is where the real )(4)'s cameh the (c in. how much political activity do they do before it becomes substantial and they are no longer primarily organized for social welfare? about training, what is the irs' budget each year? guest: for training? i do not know that, but i know it has been reduced i 83% from 2010 to where they projected to be by the end of this year. i do not know what the training budget is for the exempt organizations. host: what is the budget for the irs as a whole? guest: it is in our report but i do not know that. sierra vista, arizona,
republican line. good morning. hear youk, i cannot very well. i have my tv turned off emma but i would like a couple things answered if i can get them. i am a disabled veteran. i live on a fixed income of less than $1100 a month. and i live on that. it is kind of like, you know, when i sit there and hear all about this irs stuff, i really want -- i am 55 years old and have worked all my life. i spent 21 years and two months in the military, and this is my pension for the rest of my life or whatever. but what i am really curious -- where does the accountability come from?
they are going to start taking taxes out of my money because of o'connell -- because of obamacare and all that other stuff, i do not know how to explain what i am trying to say. host: this might be a good time for you to talk about your taxpayer bill of rights which you proposed. a pointet me answer quickly about obamacare. i think if you are a veteran and you are receiving veterans, then you would not be subject to any of the shared responsibility -- i think is what they're calling it, the penalty that would come in for for not being covered by health insurance. so i think there is that. but i think this issue of accountability is very important. for several years now i have been recommending that congress enact what is called a taxpayer bill of rights that basically says to taxpayers that you have these 10 rights. they are akin to the
constitutional bill of rights. they let taxpayers know that there are protections that they have so that they can say, wait, don't i have a right to an appeal? host: are these new protections? actually, the united states has a lot of statutory specific protections. thate did a survey in 2012 represented a sample of u.s. taxpayers nationwide, and we them did not% of know that they had rights before the irs. the 45% that knew they had rights, only 11% knew what they were. so you only have a 11% knowing what precisely their rights when you only have 11% know in their rights, that is an issue. it is also to provide a construct for the irs to look at
its initiatives and analyze them according to the foundational rights taxpayers have. in my report, i look at the exempt organization function issue that has occurred. i look at it in light of what i am proposing as the bill of rights. i found operation of this program -- >> see the rest of the discussion online anytime at c- span.org. we're going live to the national press club for week marks from carly fiorina on her work with good360 that helps companies donate excess merchandise to charities. >> please visit our web site at www.press.org. our members worldwide, i would like to
welcome our speaker today and those of you in our audience. our head table includes the guest speaker and working journalists who our club members. if you hear applause in our audience, members of the general public are also attending. it is not necessarily evidence of a last -- lack of journalistic objectivity. i would also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. you can follow the action today on twitter. after an hour guest speaker concludes, we will have a question and answer period. i will ask as many questions as time permits. it is time to introduce our head table guests. please stand briefly as your name is announced. from your right, the retired u.s. navy captain. , founder and chief social officer socially ahead. christopher chambers, a professor of media studies at georgetown university.
the president and ceo of good360. the national press club vice- president and an adjunct professor at george washington university and the former ap bureau chief in tokyo, new delhi, and london. speaking over our speaker, the washington bureau chief for and the member that organized today's event. a free-lance journalist covering business and technology and the chairwoman of the freelance committee. and the president of the wharton club of washington, d.c., and a member who assisted in making today's luncheon happen. [applause] our guest today enjoyed a fascinating and successful
career involving technology, politics, and most recently as you will hear, philanthropy. as many of our members know, one of our priorities this year is to celebrate women's roles in our society. i am particularly pleased our guest today, carly fiorina, agreed to participate. born in austin, texas, her own career began as a secretary working in a small business. what a journey she has had since then. as chairman and chief executive officer of hewlett-packard from 1999 until 2005, she was the first woman to lead a fortune 20 company for six years she was magazine's most powerful woman in business. it was during her tenure as a created the world's largest personal computer manufacturer. after her departure, they failed
to capitalize on the move to mobile products. politics has also been central to her work in recent years having played key roles in the republican presidential campaigns of both john mccain and mitt romney. she ran unsuccessfully in a bid to unseat democratic senator barbara boxer in california, but she was triumphant in the biggest battle of her life as a survivor of breast cancer. during a recent interview when asked if she might run again for office, she replied, "never say never." she received her bachelor's degree from stanford. she dropped out of law school but made up for that by getting an m.b.a. from the university of maryland as well as a master of science in management from m.i.t. since we're here at the national press club, we should mention our guest is a best-selling with her memoir. she was also an intruder to fox
business. what has she been up to lately? she is now the chairman of good360. it is based nearby in alexandria, virginia, it was founded three decades ago assisting firms to donate obsolete or seasonal items to thousands of charitable organizations. these include clothing, books, toys, office and school supplies, computers, among other things. we will hear more about network today. please help me welcome to the national press club carly fiorina. [applause] >> thank you and good afternoon. it is great to be with all of you. what iecently asked
thought an entrepreneur was. of the press corps said, what is an innovator? i had to think for a moment. my answer was an entrepreneur and innovator is someone who can envision a different future. an entrepreneur is someone who dreams big. and works long hours. an entrepreneur is someone who sees possibilities. by seizing those possibilities, they create possibilities for others. because it is almost a fourth of july, also fought on the way here about what makes this country great, what is so special about this country. as you heard in the introduction, i began my career a secretary.ult as
a graduated from stanford university with a degree in medieval history and philosophy. in the middle of a recession. upch meant i was all dressed and nowhere to go. like so many in my situation, i .ecided to go to law school the only thing as i hated law school. i quit after a single semester. in order to make a living, and went back to doing what i was doing in college to help pay my bills. i was a heck of a typist. i went back to work as a secretary. i typed, i filed, answer the person for a little nine- company. i have traveled all over the world. ,t is true, still, to this day that is only in the united states of america that a young
woman typing and filing for a nine-person firm can soon -- it only took 20 something years -- become the ceo of one of the artist companies on earth. that is only possible in the united states of america. [applause] possible here not because i am so special. it is possible here because this place is so special. it is so special because it was founded on a radical idea, an idea it was radical in 1776, but it is still radical to this day. the idea is every human being has potential, that everyone has the right to fulfill their potential. it does not matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or what your last name is.
actually, all that matters is where you want to go. all that matters is that you have potential. all that matters is how you envision your own future. that was a radical idea. it is a radical idea still. it is inextricably linked with the power entrepreneurship. entrepreneurship is the single greatest lever for fulfilling human potential and for lifting people out of poverty that the world has ever known. it is the genius of this country that we coupled political liberty with the opportunity to build your own future, to imagine your own something youate have a stake in so that you and your family are better off.
entrepreneurialism and innovation is a uniquely american gift. it is the secret sauce that makes this a special place. it is true because so many americans got their start exactly the way i did. i started out in a little nine- person firm. an entrepreneur and his partner started the firm because they wanted to imagine a different future for themselves, for their families, for their community. one day while i was typing and filing at my desk after six months of working there, those two partners came to me and said we have been watching you. we think you can do more than tight and file. do you want to learn about what we do? do you want to find out something about the world of business?
because they took a chance on me, because they saw me i had nots in considered, i was able to envision a different future for myself. that happens in america every day in communities all across this great nation. wave after wave of immigrants have gotten their start as entrepreneurs. you do not have to be steve jobs to be an entrepreneur. tacaria,nt to open a you are an entrepreneur. you are creating a better future for yourself, your family, and by extension, your community. wave after wave of immigrants got their start there. if you look at the statistics, you will see that women-owned small businesses, african american owned small businesses, have been
historically the fastest-growing segments in our economy. in this great country where we are defined by our potential, it is entrepreneurialism it lifts people up. while it may be uniquely american and while it may be our country genius to have provided the opportunity to start your own business and imagine your own future to more people than at any time or place in human history, innovation and entrepreneurialism and is a fundamentally human thing. i know this from my work with the one woman foundation, the one woman initiative i found in six years ago. through my work today with opportunity international, these are organizations that give a very small amount of credit to win in -- women in desperate circumstances. , what we have
found, is if you give someone a chance with just a little bit of money, if you give someone a chance to build a better life for themselves and their families by building a business which they can own a state can, , progress happens. people lift themselves from poverty. entrepreneurialism is a human drive. but it is in this country where it has seen its fullest flowering. here we are on july 1, 2013. what is the state of entrepreneurialism and innovation in this country? i think the data is a bit alarming. i think of entrepreneurialism is in trouble in this country. allow me to give you a couple of
statistics. there are more small and new businesses fail in and fewer atrting at this time than any time in the last 40 years. small and newr businesses starting and were in the than in any time last 40 years. this depressed state of entrepreneur loosen -- altruism is why i believe the economy is under performing. atis why the economy grows 2%. it is why our unemployment rate is stuck at an unacceptably high six. something%. if you look at the data, you know new and small businesses create 2/3 of new jobs in this country and employ half of the people.
if you have fewer small businesses starting, if you have more small businesses failing, you have an economy that is under-performing and fewer people with the possibility of that first job, in my case, or perhaps a first or second chance. there was recently a survey washingtonn "the post." in that survey, 70% of small businesses said they felt the government was hostile to their efforts. not neutral. hostile. why, if youeople get answers like, it is just too hard. it is too complicated. i do not know how many of you saw the front page article in
"the wall street journal" ascribing what is now known a risk averse culture in the united states. the article quoted many statistics. fundamentally what it said is this is a place where people used to take pride in taking that risk and now we are reluctant to do so. data, youthrough the find people are saying the risk of failure is getting too high and a reward for success is becoming too low. it is a bipartisan, to recognize our tax code is now tens of thousands of pages and it is way too complicated for any entrepreneur to wade through. it is a bipartisan comment to recognize our regulatory environment has become so complex.
there are thousands of regulations written into law every year but rarely if ever is a regulation ever repealed. the consequence is a geologic sediment of complexity. of regulationy , in myation is literally view and represented by the data, is literally choking the entrepreneurial life out of our economy. this is of grave concern or should be to everyone, from liberal to libertarian and everyone in between. i recently had the great pleasure to moderate a panel discussion at the clinton global initiative among three very impressive female entrepreneurs. as one of the noted, she said kids in school learn how to the
employees. they do not learn how to be entrepreneurs. i thought it was a telling comment. how does washington work? i grew up in big business, really big business. i would say it is accurate to describe washington has a place .hat works well if you are big if you are a big business, it works really well. you can hire legions of accountants and lobbyists. in fact, all of that complexity helps in this business -- a big business a lot of times. if you are a big trade association, if you represent lots of votes, whether you are a union or a company, washington works well for you because you have the resources and time to wade through the complexity and let us to sometimes manipulate
the complicated environment to advantage you and your members. if you are a politician, it is to your advantage as well because now your job becomes to represent people and help them navigate through this thicket of complexity. but washington does not work well if you are an innovator and of corner -- entrepreneur who is so busy trying to build your future for yourself, for your family, and for your community that you do not have the time or resources to navigate your way through this thicket. the data says to many are just giving upper -- giving up. i will never forget a luncheon i had in denver. i was talking to a group of small-business owners. i was encouraging them to get more involved in the political process. it was a bipartisan group.
one of them finally said to me what was partly obvious. he said we are too busy. we do not have time to figure it out. an innovator and small business owner dha time. they're literally spending all of their time trying to make it work. have you ever heard the sry of the frog in the boiling water? if you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, he will jump out to save himself. but if you put a frog in a pot of water and slowly turn it up to a boil, the frog will boil to death. that hened so gradually does not realize until it is too late. i worry that we are gradually year after year creating an
similarly choking the life out of this entrepreneurial economy, little by little, regulation upon regulation. let's talk about the nature of bureaucracies because bureaucracies matter in washington. we're full of them. because the big companies and big associations and big labor unions that do well in washington are also big bureaucracies. bureaucracies, by their nature whether political or business, what characterizes a bureaucracy? tradition-es bound institution that seeks to preserve itself and that overtime rewards playing by the rules rather than judgment and initiative.
these are not a pejorative, i am making. these are factual comment. are rules-based organizations. it is an organization that rewards playing by the rules. it is an organization that celebrates playing by the rules more than destructive innovation. innovation.e we have lots of bureaucracies. over time what happens in bureaucracies whether they are business or politics, is they become inward looking, insulated. playing by the rules inside becomes more important than serving customers or constituents outside. this contributes to an environment where people not only lose faith in the institutions would have -- which have become bureaucracies, but
conclude those plutocracies -- bureaucracies are hostile. entrepreneur is give people a chance. entrepreneurs gave me my first chance. in some cases, they give people a second and third chance and a fourth chance. entrepreneurs are not just about for-profit businesses. my whole life i have been animated by the opportunity to helpful full potential in myself and others. it is why i am so proud to be associated with an organization which recognizes civic society also helps lift people out of poverty and helps them fulfill their potential. rather than just have waste go into landfills, we work with good hearted and smart minded businesses with excess inventory and make sure that inventory
gets to people in need. the charities, instead of worrying about whether they're members or their needy constituents have diapers for that week, they can instead worry about helping those women. i am proud to be associated with the national center for entrepreneurship and innovation, a group of like-minded people who believe is vital that we restore entrepreneurship as a shared an enduring value in america. it is why i am proud to be engaged in micro finance here and around the world to help give people a chance to lift themselves and their families out of poverty. in the few minutes i have left, what do we do so we do not boil the fraud to death? so instead of choking the life out of the economy and a special place we
unlock the potential of all of those frustrated entrepreneurs and innovators? i think there are four basic policy prescriptions. critical ofbeen washington, there are small glimmers of hope. first we need tax reform. not just lowering rates, although that is important since our tax rates are now the highest in the world. but radical simplification. tax reform has bipartisan support. efforts ofned by the senator orrin hatch and max baucus, two good friends of mine and two good men who are starting with the fundamental notion that they will wipe out every loophole and reduction in the tax code. for years i have been saying the only way to do this is to lower every rate and close every loophole.
because let's face it, the loopholes mostly benefit those that are big. maybe there are a few that would you reduce that he would let come back in. what they've understand is if you say if they all go, the burden of proof is on those who must argue to put them back in. we not only need lower tax rates, we need radical simplification of the tax code so an entrepreneur does not look at it and say i cannot possibly and gived 26,000 pages up before they start. tax reform. we need immigration reform. we desperately need immigration reform. if you set aside the criminals who are coming in where the people who have broken our laws or the human traffickers, why is it that people come to this country? because they envision a better life for themselves and their families.
because they are desperate to imagine and create a different future than they have. are at a moment where bi-partisan immigration reform is possible and where we recognize our legal immigration system is so fundamentally broken the we're hurting ourselves as a nation. this has to be the place for ever and for always where hard- working people all around the world say that is where i want to go. that is where i want to dream my dream and build something different for my future. zero basednk we need budgeting. i know there is a lot of talk in washington about a balanced budget amendment. i think that is less useful than saying we are going to ask every bureaucracy in the united states government to literally justify
every dollar they spend. that is what we do in business. i know as a business person whether you are talking about a small start up or a huge fortune 20 company, this is true. if you give an organization more , theirear after year performance will deteriorate. it will not improve. because people lose the ability to prioritize. they lose the discipline to justify why they are spending money. they lose the incentive to explain clearly that they are trying to spend each and every dollar wisely and well. zero based budgeting where congress has the opportunity to ask for justification for every dollar and the transparency that comes along with that. it does not matter whether you
are a liberal, libertarian, or somewhere in between, we would be shocked at what we're spending money on. if you doubt what i just said, that more money does not mean better performance, think about what is going on in the veterans administration. it is not because people are ill meaning. it is just because the way in againstacy works, works performance sometimes. the veterans administration has increased 45% in the last five years. we would applaud that. yet the waiting time for veterans to receive disabilities has gone from 260 days in 2008 to 400 something days in 2013. not betteroney is performance. zero based budgeting. finally, i would create a task force of small-business owners and entrepreneurs. somehow we have to keep their businesses going in the meantime. their job would be to look at
each and every regulation on the books today. each and everyone. they would make recommendations about which to kill, which to modify. my guess is we could do with at least 50% to regulations and we have today. it is not the regulation is not important. it is important sometimes. but one literally no one knows how many we have, when literally which ones contradict others, when literally confined no one in the city who can say i know all of these regulations make sense -- because hell is it regulations get put together? somebody finds a problem. they say a i need to fix that problem. that particular problem may need fixing. that regulation may make sense. when you add it up with everything over time, pretty soon together none of it makes sense. we need a full-scale regulatory
review. i do policy prescriptions not think are partisan. you may or may not believe they are possible. as we approach the fourth of july, i would close by saying this. nation in theue course of human history. it is a unique nation in the course of human history because thatat radical idea everyone has potential, that everyone deserves the right to fulfill their potential, that everyone deserves a chance and maybe a second, third, and fourth chance. the thing that makes that radical idea come to life, in addition to political liberties and protections, is
entrepreneurialism, the ability to imagine a future and then to build the future. have so many problems in this world and in this country. one in six people live in poverty today. we have so many opportunities to compete and win. .uman capacity is limitless but human potential is too rarely fulfilled. on this fourth of july, what i am hoping is that in addition to the great founding fathers who had the genius to imagine this place, in addition to the veterans who have died and fallen and fought to preserve this place, that we will celebrate the entrepreneurs and innovators who made this place. thank you so very much.
[applause] >> thank you. you get to stay appear and answer questions. we have a lot from the audience. you talk about immigration reform, calling for something to be done. do you support the comprehensive immigration reform package the senate passed last week? >> the short answer is yes. i think it must be comprehensive. i think there are some things the house can and should and hopefully will do before it passes something also in a bipartisan way. understand why people want someone other than the federal government to say yes, the border is secure. on the other hand, i think we're
pouring enough resources at the border based on the senate bill that it should be quite easy for a governor to say my border is secure. i hope people will recognize that reform by its nature always requires compromise. i hope people on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers will not get too hung up on taking credit for anything but will instead conclude that as the chinese proverb says, success has many fathers and failure is an orphan. to embrace the fact that what we have today is the worst of all outcomes. we have to have reform. reform, we know the housing market is still recovering from the crisis our
economy has been in for a number of years. you talked about eliminating all of the tax credits and starting from scratch. that would include the mortgage deduction. keep the economy from going into another housing crisis? of that question is a perfect illustration of why i say we should start with a blank state and why i think they have a right. of course there is a justification for virtually every deduction. i can stand here and make a wonderful case for the home mortgage deduction or i could say mostly that deduction is most useful for people who have not just one home but two homes. but the point is that through a process of starting with a blank slate, now the burden of proof is on who can muster the political will to put a
loophole back in. maybe there will be enough political will to preserve the home mortgage deduction that it will be preserved. that would be ok with me. that 80% plus of the deductions and loopholes and complications in our tax code will not be defended or preserved. if we could get rid of 80%, that would be huge progress in my mind. it is the process that matters because it will cause a different outcome than saying let's have the political process to debate who loses their deduction. that is a political free-for-all that will not end in the right outcome. the question asks if entrepreneurship is linked with
innovation. israel has a stifling bureaucracy but lots of innovation. what is your take on that? >> i think it is an interesting question. i think in part, the question illustrates the link between democracy and innovation. i believe this is a link. political liberty is linked to economic liberty. one of the reasons china, as an example, has difficulty with innovation is because the innovation threatens the political institutions. singapore nowsons struggles with the innovation is , whilest their society there is much about it that i
deeply admire, it is by their own admission a society that has celebrated conformity. innovation is not conformity. .nnovation is disruptive it is by its nature revolutionary sometimes. destructive revolutionary ideas generally do not have been in a politically constrained environment. if they do, they are threatening in a politically constrained environment. that is why commit to me, is the genius of this place -- that is why to me, is the genius of this place that they are two sides of the same point although both are a fundamental human yearning. reportedhas been much recently regarding the government handling of personal data belonging to americans and others. president obama said he is trying to balance national
security against privacy. how well do you think the administration is doing? should individuals have confidence in their best interests are being well guarded? take it out of the context of president obama and his the administration and generalize my answer because it is what i believe. saying, the old absolute power corrupts absolutely? to me, the question raised by irs is, how is it we should hold the death. in these vast, complex, opaque institutions accountable. -- how is it that effective oversight is possible? how can we possibly know that if
a few people with vast power, whether it is the federal reserve chairman or the head of theysa, how can we know are always competent, ethical, well meaning? the point is i think we need a fundamental re-examination, i would hope on a bipartisan basis, prompted by these events at nsa and irs. we need a fundamental re- examination of how we conduct effective oversight. how do we hold these institutions accountable? perhaps in the course of that fundamental re-examination we will conclude sometimes there is too much power invested in too few people and sometimes bureaucracies have become so that they are unmanageable
and we need to do something different those are the profound questions i hope will be raised twin events this summer in washington. [applause] >> how on cyber security, when he was still defense secretary, leon panetta warned the nation the possibility ofha week-old a cyber pearl harbor. he said they could put our transportation system and financial networks at risk. is that true? if so, why have we not done a better job to protect against the threat since it probably involves a partnership between government and industry? >> i think it is true. i served for a time as the chair of the external advisory board
at the cia and on the defense business board. i have talked clearances. -- i have top clearances. there is no question the chinese invest heavily in hacking all kinds of things in this country from business to industry. there is no question cyber espionage has been a tool of the chinese and others for some time. it is theo question new front, the new face of 21st as well asnomics political conflict. with the questioner that solving any one of these big problems requires private-public partnership, cooperation between the private and public sector. i think there has been a fair amount of this. i am also encouraged by the
fact that there is a huge community of entrepreneurs in the northern virginia area who are focused on the cyber security threat and from whom we inht see some terrific pensions that will keep us ahead of the threat. keep ustions that will ahead of the threat. the first step to solving a problem is to speak publicly. i am encouraged we are saying publicly that we have a problem. china is part of the problem. by the way, whatever you think of the nsa program, there is no equivalent between what the chinese are doing in this country and a round of world and the nsa program. in thisot allow anyone country or around the world to it too.u.s. are doing
it is not equivalent. >> a young person in our audience asks how you have combined passions in the for- profit and nonprofit world. how would decent just those beginning their careers to balance both? -- how would you suggest those beginning their careers to balance both? >> one thing i find so encouraging is the number of young people going into water known today as social not exactlybetter for-profit or not-for-profit but are something in between. they are investment opportunities focused on achieving success and doing good. is there are too many businesses that missed the
opportunity to do good while they're doing well. kinds of all opportunities in business to do while up the same time doing well. it is true of the corporate partners we have at good360. we had a series of investments when i was at h-p focused on building communities, doing good in the community, but we got something out of that in better employees, better partners, better customers. businesses can do well and do good. it is likewise true there are some plan to appease and by passionnimated but not sufficiently disciplined about how they run their operations. if you are trying to do good in a community with donor money, you need to be thinking hard about spending every single
dollar wisely and well. the discipline that comes from business is incredibly helpful in philanthropy in the heart of philanthropy is helpful in business. my young person i would say life is not exactly the right road map. but parents work exceedingly concerned when i dropped out of law school. they were concerned again when i went back to work as a secretary. they were near panic stricken when i quit that job and went to italy to teach english. here is what i would say if you are a young person. do not worry too much about what your first job is. .ork hard at every job there is no substitute for hard work. the person who is most likely to get promoted wherever you are working is the person who is doing a really good job at the job they have. find where your heart is. what excites you?
what do you have fun that? what is your passion? because you are not going to be good at something that does not get you going in the morning. [applause] >> as far as your next career you were asked on television whether you might run for elective office again. your answer was to never say never. you noted there is a new opportunity because you live in virginia. we are at the national press club where we like to make news. tell us if you have any interest in trying to get in for elected office. >> sorry, i will not make news today. but i do believe to never say never. wonderful opportunity in my life. as mentioned in the
introduction, and a cancer survivor. we lost a daughter in the last several years. i know how fortunate i have been in my life and how blessed our family has been. i know how short life can be. about how i make the biggest contribution i can in the thing that gets me going in the morning, which is to unlock human potential, help people on what their potential. for me, that is about being associated with not for profits that helped to do that. can i help to restore the entrepreneurial spirit in this country? can i help women to realize their potential? women are the most underutilized potential in the world. can i help to develop leadership capacity with the organist -- organizations i work with? i have always believed when opportunity knocks, you need to
answer the door, never say never. [applause] >> that leads into the next question. book andndberg's advice has generated controversy this year, perhaps more than she anticipated. what is your take on what she had to say? is a goodndberg friend of mine. -- cheryl sandberg is a good friend of mine. good for her that she has decided to spend her time, talent, and money to help inspire other women. there are some things i disagree with her on however. one thing mentioned in my introduction, i was the number one powerful woman in business for six years in a row. it was a great honor, but every
year i would say to the editors and publishers, why are you doing this? why're you frank ordering women to 50? ordering women 1 if you want to celebrate women, good. but why are you ranking us? when business is the golf or tennis ladder. this is not sports. in the game of life and business, it is better when everybody gets to play. the thing where i disagree with her is i think it is about women and men. but let's talk about women for a moment, fulfilling their potential. sometimes it is true women become risk averse. they do not want to take a chance on the job they have never done. i know when i took various jobs, people would always say to me do
not take that job. it is too risky. you might fail. what i found out is when you go into a job that is messed up, if you fix it, people notice. ares true sometimes women risk averse. on the other hand, some women do not have the opportunity to take a risk. they are single mothers trying to raise a couple of kids. they do not get to take a risk. they have to think about other things. sometimes men are not willing to take the risk by hiring someone who is different from someone -- me is different from them or listening to a different point of view. i think feminism is when every woman iand any woman has the opportunity, tools, and chance to live the life she chooses. not every woman will choose to become a ceo. some women decide to give back to their communities in ways
that are unheralded and yet have a huge difference. hasnism is when every woman the opportunity and tools and chance to live the life she chooses. whether or not approve or would make the same choice. -- whether or not men would approve or make the same choice. [applause] >> there may be more women ceo's, but technology management and boards are still dominated by men, mostly white men. do you think this will change in the next 10 years? why or why not? >> it is an interesting dichotomy when you look at american business today. when i became the ceo of hewlett-packard, and was the only woman running a fortune 50 company. scrutiny,attention, and criticism were unbelievable
and not anticipated by me. today ibm is run by a woman. hewlett-packard is run by a woman. yahoo! is run by a woman. xerox and pepsi are run by women. the list goes on. it is wonderful. 20% of boardthan members are women or people of color. int statistic has not moved 10 plus years. it is true technology is still dominated by men. it is true the financial sector is still dominated by men. hand funny because on one progress and on the other not so much. i think the reason is because we're coming up against it. it is along for that there are not qualified people in the pipeline -- it is no longer that there are not qualified people in the pipeline. coming upw we're
against what it really is. what it really is, is people have to take a risk. they have to take a risk on someone they do not know. they have to take a risk on someone who thinks differently than they do. they have to take a risk on someone who will challenge them. they have to be prepared to have an environment that is sometimes uncomfortable. i think diversity is a business imperative. it is not a nice to do anymore. many people think it is about being inclusive and doing the right thing. yes, but more fundamentally it is a business imperative. it is a competitiveness in. two. i have sat around lots of tables where decisions were made. with all kinds of people. if you have a group of people that is mostly a like, they
think alike, look alike, probably have known each other for a while, you will make a decision, but it will not be as good a decision as one that is made by a group of people that are different from each other and challenged each other. that decision making process is going to be messier, harder, there is going to be some conflicts, but you will end up at a better place because you will consider more alternatives. this is china's great boehner ability going forward. they all think alike. at least those in power. i hope it will get better in 10 years. i believe it will not truly get better until people understand this is not about a nice to do. this is about we have to do it. we have to do it to perform at our best as a nation and as companies. [applause]
of time. almost out before asking the last question, a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. i would like to remind you of our next luncheon speaker. that will be the president and ceo of duke energy on august 8. i would like to present our guest with the traditional national press club coffee mug. [applause] question, let's go back to your speech. you have worn a lot of hats during your life so far. you have seen regulations from many different angles. if you could choose only one federal regulation to rescind, what would it be? >> only one? [laughter] it is probably sheeting to say that is the wrong question. it is not the one that is the problem. it is the hundreds of thousands that are the problem.
i do not know how to answer that question. if i had to wave a magic wand, here is what i would wish for. our elected representatives would come to this city every day and instead of thinking about all the people they think about who have offices in town, they would come to work every day and think, what am i going to do today to unlockedash an entrepreneurial potential? what one regulation should i get rid of? i cannot think of one but they know what they are. so much. [applause] >> thank you for coming today.
thank you to our audience. i like to thank the national press club staff for organizing today's event. you can find more information about the national press club on our website. if you look like a copy of today's program, check out the website at press.org. thank you. we are adjourned. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] capitole picture of the dome this afternoon. congress is out of town this week. members are away for the fourth of july holiday. today interest rates for new federally subsidized student loans doubled to 6.8%.
unless congress restores the lower rates when they return, the joint economic committee estimates college students taking out new loans pay an additional $2,600. live coverage of the house and senate when they both return on c-span and c-span2. last month, the national cable and tele-communications association held its annual meeting in washington. industry leaders, network executives, technology companies, and on-air personalities gathered for a conversation about the current state and future of digital media. this week, we will show you some of those discussions. one each evening beginning at 6:30 on c-span. tonight, "where we go from here." it will feature executives from showtime, amc, and here
and he's been. of denvere university with the southwest airlines' ceo gary kelly on airline travel in the country. we will open of the bomb lines and get your thoughts on what you would ask officials to do to improve trouble. that is tonight at 8:00 eastern. the supreme court ended their term with decisions on the same- sex marriage. this week we will bring new oral arguments from some of the court's most closely-watched cases. the " -- court ruled 5-for that section 4 is unconstitutional. you can listen to the oral argument tonight at 10:00 eastern. and past weekend ted olson the green house joined the panel of legal scholars.
about one hour, 45 minutes. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. it is my pleasure to introduce the panel. storied panel.st >> a great tradition of this circuit. professor howard. something for so long and for professor howard to do it for so long is you forget how much contribution professor howard makes to this conference. i would like to highlight
professor howard. he is the american scholar, one who knows that thought alone does not ripen into trees. he has been involved in bringing constitutional governments around the world, from eastern europe to southern africa to asia and south america. if i may make a personal note, and one that have professor howard to thank for, you are the chief architect of the of virginia. voice, we were able to amend those provisions of the 1902 constitution of this in fright -- disenfranchisement and those that held a lot of -- is back and help to the little boy to reach his way and find his way to the fourth circuit.
great work in thank you for bringing this great panel. ladies and gentlemen, prof. of law and public affairs at the university of regina school of law, prof. howard. [applause] >> good morning to all of you. i might say at the outset that you do not have to worry about the virginia constitution. we are just across the border. decisionsnot have the or the highlights of the most last fall and the concluded. we have a star-studded panel. we have as good a panel as we have had at this conference. i will introduce them quickly. first we have linda greenhouse.
many of you know her from her years of covering the supreme court as correspondent for the new york times. law school. allyson. she has clerked for judge wilkins of the fourth circuit and worked for justice david souter. of william and mary. she is one of the rising stars in the legal academy. teaches law at northwestern university law school. he is a prolific scholar. he writes books the way most of us write letters. and one on the originalism fromnext we have ted olson. he served at one time as solicitor general of the united states. he has argued 60 cases before
ihe supreme court including two theure my fellow panelists fourth circuit who made us feel so much at home during this judicial conference. here we are at the eighth year of the roberts court. it is a courts we will be generalize. when can we say about thewhat might we say about it based on what the judges have done in this recent term. several questions of the kind i
suspect might be on your mind. the first is, how conservative is the court? some commentators characterize it in the conservative terms. some would say that it is the most conservative court we have had since the 1930's before the 1937 constitutional revolution. some would say that is of a character and they point to liberal exceptions, cases such as the case decided this week, the defense of marriage case. most people would think this is berger and rehnquist court's. the second question is, what is the correlation between the
president's -- presidents who put them there? teddy roosevelt's disappointment in the justice holmes. president eisenhower's discipline in earl warren and souter. i think we do not see that sort of pattern anymore. the board, there is much more of the correlation between what how the justice actually performed. the third question is the pipeline debate about it. itn we hang the label of
basically means you do not like what the court did. activist judges. it is hard to get past that definition. that years ago, when they decided the northwest and boston voting rights act of 1965 and avoiding a constitutional decision in that case. sometimes the roberts scored uses avoidance technique, such as standing in the proposition 8 case, sending that case back on in other cases, the court can strike back and be assertive. exhibits a -- exhibit a in that category could be the citizens united case. there is the question of the relationship between the court and congress and political bodies and legislative bodies. they ought to have been.
if you were judging the court from the perspective of the united states chamber of commerce, they would have to be pretty happy with this court. they have been on the winning side of the last couple of terms in every case they have filed a brief period of the chamber is much more -- they have been on the winning side of the last couple of terms in every case they have filed a brief on. there are cases that seem to favor arbitration over litigation. there are cases in which the plaintiffs to sue in the case of harmful drugs or workplace discrimination. there is a fair amount of make some judgment about the court's view of business. is the court and ideologically divided court? deciding labels on the
conservative side. on the liberal side, that is always risky because it may suggest judges are like politicians. that is a felonious assumption. it helps us think about the bad court. in this public -- particular term, almost one-third of the cases were divided 5-4. most cases are decided that way, almost 25%. the four most conservative members are on one side and its most liberal members are on the other side. that was the case this week in the shelby county decision that struck down the coverage formula of the voting rights act. there was a miranda case, an case. there was a case that involved foreign surveillance, against 5-4. there is that pattern. there are significant
divergences from that pattern. for example, unanimity. one tends to overlook how often the court comes down 9-1. unanimous in just about half of the cases, including cases in melding -- involving dog sniffs on cars, cases involving farmers charging -- john g. market regulation. there are also -- cases involving market regulation and farmers. the proposition a case that came down this week, we found -- proposition 8 case that came down this week, we thought scalia joined justice roberts. dissent.omas, a leto,
kennedyalito, kennedy in -- a dissent. kennedy in dissent. people always wonder about justice kennedy. he has replaced justice as the -- what role does he play in the court? there is no justice that is more often in the majority than justice kennedy. in this particular term, he was in the majority 80% of the time. in the three most important cases, those involving affirmative action and the protein rights act of 1965 and same-sex marriage -- voting rights act of 1965 and same-sex
marriage, he was the only one in the majority in every one of those cases. some of his leadership has been pretty dramatic. we will long be parsing the talking about this morning and what is justice kennedy up to there? those are some of the questions we might ask. i put them on the table as general thought as a way of getting perspective to our discussion of the roberts court. up on our panel. we want to focus our discussion we make no pretense at being comprehensive. you cannot do that in a program like this. if we try to, very few of you would still be in the audience by the time we finished. much better to take a few cases
and try to air some thoughtswe will pay particular attention to the marquee cases, the voting rights act of 1965, the shelby county case, the affirmative action case, and the pair of same-sex marriage cases, united states versus windsor. we will make time for a few other selected areas along with we want to start out with those we have met and talked about it. we have parceled out our assignments. we have people to talk about any and all of these cases. we thought a division of labor might make sense. i was thinking we would start out chronologically. takes us back to 1978. the same-sex marriage case is a more contemporary kind of issue, emerging in more recent years. finally, of those major cases,
we want to say something about law and technology. we have in adjusting dna cases on the docking -- the docket. i would like to start out with the voting rights act case, the case back linda greenhouse will tell us about. linda? >> shelby county, alabama v. holder. it goes back to 1965. you could say it goes back to reconstruction and the enactment of the 14th and 15th amendments, which authorized congress to carry out the guarantees of equal protection and voting rights in those amendments by appropriate legislation. at the heart of this case is, did congress act appropriately in it enumerated powers? in 2006, when it reenacted, for the fourth time, section 5 of
the voting rights act, the pre -- - re-clearance provision -- not change how you designate the covered jurisdiction. some years. there was the northwest austin case of 2009 when a similar constitutional challenge came to the court. in that case, it was under the court's's mandatory jurisdiction. -- court's mandatory jurisdiction.
the question is, by right did shelby county bring a facia clearly, the statute applies to shelby county. there was a 5-4 decision, majority opinion by chief the coverage provision. on the little hand out of summaries of cases in which i wrote the shelby county summary, before the case came down this week, i talked about the analysis in proportionality, act. that turned out not to be true. if i had to summarize the rationale, i could not do it. they do not actually rely on the city. it is kind of like, we finally have 5 votes to get rid of section 5 of the voting rights act. will not be able to readjust the coverage formula. the pre-clearance provision is dead in the water. the coverage today is based on decades old data and eradicated practices.
the references to the first fatten -- practices, which are rare, if they exist at all. in justice ginsburg, she takes discriminatory voting actions that we saw in the last election. voter i.t.. -- id. this is where we are left. we have a statute that was reenacted by congress in 2006. the vote in the house was 390 against 33. in the senate, it was 98 against nothing. it raises profound questions about the court's stance with congress. ofy make up aoc t
states under the coverage formula. it raises a question of activism. this is a decidedly activist and troubling decision. i know others want to weigh in have a conversation. >> i think the decision is not as troubling as linda does. i think it is quite interesting that the chief justice does not use the modern language. mccullough plays a large role in the case. at these -- this case says is that the court has to police things, at least to make sure the objectives the congress is
trying to seek are not pre- textual. in other words, they are not g discrination for some itme rational evidence that is is important to make this a little more concrete about what i think is motivating the court and why you might think there is a pretext. politicians like to be reelected. the pre-clearance process makes for a much more static political process in the states. it protects incumbents from change, change in redistricting processes.
in particular, the voting rights act, with the pre-clearance provision, by preventing changes, packs african american voters in one district and conservative-leaning voters in another district. that makes for a less competitive political process. we hear from political scientists that that is a hugeif you have people packed in different districts, you are less likely to get up dating on information. experiments with commissions to get at this problem. this is a pre-clearance process that gives thisincentives -- to protect against discrimination it is hard toe, see because there is no updating on information. congress is land and named the time they are reacting. given be better behavior in the
south, that seems to be a hard thing to square with the objective of protecting obtain rights rather than doing these other kinds of objectives, which you may worry that politicians of both parties will come together and create a >> congress documented hundreds of discriminatory voting time under section 5.
i think it is probably not the case that everything was just going along great. i want to share one other thing. back in the 1990's, the court took aim at the use of section 5 to do the kind of redistricting you described, dismantling race-conscious redistricting. problem in recent years. case by the standards of our regionalism and our-- originalism. congress has the power to pass a program of legislation. would those tractors have thought of the case like the shelby county case? >> i will not hold myself out as an expert on reconstruction- era history.
my understanding is that courts. they did not trust the states. congress took it to itself the power to pass appropriate legislation, enforcement mechanisms to carry out the guarantee of those amendments. the original understanding would have been -- and the first supreme court decision that interpreted the voting rights act said the court's obligation is to cut congress a wide swathe. >> in the 1860's, if congress did not trust the courts, the court does not trust congress?
>> that is quite obvious. justice scalia invoked the fact that the reauthorization in 2006 was passed by overwhelming majorities and it showed political correctness. they could not have voted against it because the voting rights act is such a label or a you are sort of damned if you do and damned if you don't. >> i was just going to say three unusual things about this legislation and the case itself. number 1, it is an unusual piece of legislation in the sense that it is telling certain states that you must submit your governmental decisions to the federal government for
approval before you can make decisions with respect to polling places or districting or how you are going to allocate whether people are appointed be large or in a particular district. circumstances. some of you may know better than i. it is very unusual for the federal government to require state governments to submit a governmental decisions for federal government or to the courts. secondly, the court talked about this concept of equal sovereignty. each state, unless there are strong reasons against it, with respect to their governmental functions, have the same rights and the same privileges and the same responsibilities.
this legislation is unusual in districts, to differential treatment in terms of governmental decisions. that has not happened often in the history of the supreme court. the third thing about it, which is an underlying theme, is that the differentiation between the states involved a stigma. it is a decision by the original rights act that certain states -- and they have ample evidence -- certain states were supposed -- suppressing the ability to voted by minorities. are bad places. they discriminate and they must be put in the penalty box. the court was concerned about, the political process allows
people to voted for the voting extension of the voting rights act. it is almost impossible to other states for this on equal treatment. it is going to go on in perpetuity. how long will that on equal treatment -- unequal treatment and that stigma and feeling that you are bad people? i am not making a judgment with respect to how this all came out. themes.ree things are
>> it is certainly unique legislation. not updating the formula in 2006 was and i decision. the nature of the constitutional violation is a federalism one. it struck me as i that there is no mention of the change in the federal relationship with respect to voting, with respect to the discriminatory voting that the 15th amendment unser's -- alters that relationship. grapple with that. i found that surprising to say the least. >> one last comment. >> there is this lapse in perpetuity. there is a bailout provision in the statute that the court made more robust in 2009. including a number of our agenda of, showing that in the last 10 years they meet the says terry criteria, showing that they have not had any voting rights violations -- they meet the criteria, showing that rights violations in the last 10
years. i want to take us now to the affirmative action area. fissured versus the university of texas. -- fisher versus the diversity of texas. but it was the highly anticipated affirmative action case of this term -- >> it was the highly anticipated affirmative-action case of this term. i do not think it was the game changer that people predicted. seen. there might be more that meets
the eye. undergraduate emission policy at the university of texas at austin. a student was denied admission in 2008. she says racial minority applicants with less impressive credentials were admitted ahead of her and she was denied admission on the basis of her amendment. here is a quick sketch of what the admission policy looked like 2003, ut did not use race inthey used to grace -- they usedthey used things like leadership competency service, did you come from a family with underprivileged socio-economic background? in ut admissions. who graduate in the top 10% of their high school class.
it was passed with the goal of increasing diversity. it had some success, but the numbers were not staggering. the 2003 freshman class was 4.5% african-american and 16% hispanic. in 2003, the supreme court decides two cases concerning admissions policies from the university of michigan. those two cases together of health the use of race as a plus factor in admissions as long as it is considered part of a holistic view and does not look like a " tough -- like a quota. ut respond with a change in its admissions policies. it implemented a new policy. for the remaining spots to fill after the top 10%, the university had raced to the list
of factors they would consider in that personal achievement index. it is still a factor among factors. it still supplemented rates and standardized test scores and where you were a cheerleader and all of those important criteria. it was not a sign of numerical value. there was not even a numerical goal they were searching for. fisher did not graduate in the top 10% of her high school class, but she still had impressive grades and s.a.t. scores. 90% of texas residents who are in the ut freshman class come from the top 10% plan. she was competing for the remaining 5%.
she sues the university. the trial court in the fifth circuit cites gruder. on monday of this week, in a 7-1 opinion reversed the fifth circuit. justice kennedy wrote the majority opinion. only justice ginsburg dissented. thomas and scalia offered concurring opinions. the opinion was only 13 pages. was almost unanimous and it was straight to the point. justice kennedy reaffirmed that gruder was the relative -- relevant precedent. the the court held that fifth circuit did not apply the other case correctly. justice kennedy faulted the that certification before applying a
form of strict scrutiny that was too feeble and one that gave too much discretion to the university. he reminds us that there are two steps in strict scrutiny. the court has to be convinced that there are educational benefits from racial diversity that are compelling. justice kennedy said we concur to the university's judgment. the means chosen to meet that goal are relatively tailored to me that they did. for the second step, university does not and deference. circuitwhere the fifth aired. -- erred. arict scrutiny is not just race-neutral alternatives. this is what was called the money auote from the opinion -- quote opinion. it imposes the alton burden of demonstrating -- alternate burden of demonstrating that ratio -- racial scrutiny does not apply. it gave instructions to the sixth circuit to try again and take a second look to -- look at the strict scrutiny analysis. justice ginsburg says there is no such thing as a race-neutral way to enhance racial diversity.
week. it seems like fisher was an inkblot test. there are three potential headlines. there is a little something for everybody. the first one is that fisher reaffirmed gruder. that is the first headline. that is certainly good news. gruder is good law. certainly, a lot of people thought that is how this case would come down. justice kennedy was a dissenter in gruder. the fact that he offers this opinion and there are five votes is no small news. that is big news.
affirmative action in higher education lives on. the second headline is that fisher changed gruder. the devil is in the details. gruder. he defines a strict scrutiny in a way that is demanding. i went back and read the third circuit opinion after efficient came out. the opinion discusses gruder at length. in discussing the standard ofone explanation of the reversal in fishery is that the fifth circuit got it wrong. the fifth circuit -- or extension of the reversal in fisher is that the sixth circuitit makes strict scrutiny whichter than the strict
brings me to my last headline. fisher is going to spawn litigation over gruder. one consequence is that it is going to stimulate affirmative action lycian to the lower court. lucky for you lower court judges out there is that you get to look forward to that. this is a case that was decided at the summary judgment states. at the end of the opinion, justice kennedy applies the summary judgment may not be enough for this diversity and other universities to satisfy
its burden of showing that its policy is narrowly tailored to the compelling interest. think like a child lawyer. what kind of proof would offer to satisfy fisher? what kind of proof to you need to show? you have to show you have tried it and it is not working. even though people say this opinion was a flop, i am not sure i agree. long-term, the there are implications that may be more significant for university and first meets the eye. >> who wants to jump in on this? john? >> i agree with what has been said.
kennedy is moving affirmative action to what his position was. his original complaint was he was not with justice scalia and justice thomas in saying this action was wrong. also consistent with justice kennedy's enthusiasm for robust he judicial review. we will review this. he simply move it without saying he is changing it. he is moving it to his position in gruder. the second question. is this going to make difference? as a legal realists, i am is skeptical. -- i am skeptical. diversity is the most academic bureaucratic objective. it is hard without a clear rule
to strike down plans. it is unclear even when you do have clear rules. i do not think it is one to make a huge difference on the ground. >> i think what we saw in was the tip of a big and not pretty icebergs. cases argued back in early october, more than four months in neighboring. a 13 page opinion, which indicates a certain lack of stability. it was an aggressive grants. there was no conflict in the circuit at the time this case came up because gruder was the prevailing standard. the court reached out to take this case as a vehicle to do something. they were unable to do that
interest in them. >> it is a daunting thing to attempt to deal with these two cases, which involve so many issues that are important to our society and our culture and our political life in a short period of time. i will see what i can do. the good news is -- from my standpoint -- i represented the two couples that brought the proposition 8 case involving proposition 8, california's constitutional amendment adopted by the people in 2008 that defined marriage. it said only marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized and ballot in california. the two couples that i
represented got married yesterday afternoon. the ninth circuit listed the state that had been in affect since proposition 8 when it into effect as unconstitutional. people immediately began to get married. the two female individuals that we represented were married personally by the attorney general of california. the two mails were married by the mayor of los angeles. thousands of other people. -- the two males were married by the mayor of los angeles. you will see pictures of very happily married people. that is something that has impacted me throughout this case.
individuals whose sexual orientation put them in a position where it -- where they will not be happy are comfortable married to someone of the opposite sex can have a relationship with someone that they love who happens to be of the same sex. to what degree does the constitution and our society owe them a status of equality when it comes to something as important as mayors. proposition -- when it comes to something as important as marriage? individuals of the same sex are entitled to be buried under the concert -- california constitution, the due process clause of the california constitution. the subject is very controversial. the opponents of that decision put on the ballot a vote of november of that year. something like $100 million was
spent by the opposite side to enact the proposition. shortly thereafter, the california supreme court held a challenge that it did not violate the california constitution, the manner in which it was put on the ballot. there was an issue about process. shortly after that, this case was brought in the federal district court in san francisco. not long after that, we had a child. the judge took evidence 12 days. we had expert testimony from throughout the world, experts institutions with respect to history of marriage, the impact of discrimination, the stigma that might be affiliated with something in the that treats certain
people's relationships different than others. we had a witness that describes how important marriage was in our society. marriage was so important that when the emancipation proclamation was pronounced, slaves flocked to get married because marriage was a symbol of their liberty and their freedom and independence. the supreme court of the united states, 14 times has recognized marriage as some think it describes as the most fundamental right that exists in our society. a matter of liberty, privacy, association, and spirituality. the arguments that were made in that case were based on the equal protection and due process clause. the arguments were that this is a fundamental right.
it may not be denied to individuals who wish to marry someone of the same sex. it is taking away a fundamental right to be with the person they wish to have as a result of their liberty, their privacy, their association rights. at the same time, it is discriminating against a class of individuals based upon their status, their sexual orientation, and the gender of the person they wish to marry. sexual discrimination on the basis of gender. the state is telling them they can only marry a person of this sex. we like it to be loving versus regina case of 1967 in which the supreme court held that it was -- virginia case of 1967 in which the supreme court held that it was prohibited to marry some of the opposite race. many states still prohibited that kind of mayors. the supreme court unanimously struck that down. those were the issues the
district judge decided. the proposition violated the constitution. the ninth circuit upheld it on a narrow grounds, the ground to being that the right had been recognized in the california and taken away from a class of people. then it came to the supreme court. procedurally, the wrinkle that ultimately involves the decision in the case is that the general and the governor of california declined to defend the constitutionality of proposition 8. they were continuing to enforce the provisions of proposition 8. the proponents intervened in the case.
when it came time to appeal, the attorney general and the governor declined to appeal. the argument was made at that point that there is no standing in the hands of the proponents. they have not suffered an actual concrete injury as a result of proposition 8. they were just like any other citizens who believed this was a measure and that should be a part of california law. the ninth circuit rejected that and the supreme court decided the case of backgrounds. the petitioners had not raised the standing question because they had won in the ninth circuit on the issue of standing. the supreme court specifically asked the parties to address the standing question when it came to be at the states supreme court. they had a 5-4 decision written by the chief justice and held that the proponents of a ballot proposition to not have under article 3 of the constitution to take the appeal. therefore, there was no valid appeal from the distant court
decision. the defense of marriage case arises out of a statute that was passed overwhelmingly by congress. that tells you a little bit about how times have changed. in 1996, the issue of same-sex marriage began to appear on the horizon as a result of some activity in high -- hawaii and other places. doma. section 2 a each state the right not to recognize a same- sex marriage that was performed and valid in another state. if utah did not want to recognize and provide benefits to a couple that had been married legally in massachusetts, they did not have to recognize that union. section 3 of doma redefined what marriage meant and what spouse meant under federal that only a man and
a woman would be recognized as married for federal benefits and obligations. something like 1148 provisions in federal law provides benefits or rights to couples based upon your marital status. that was doma. it was challenged by edie windsor, had married her lifelong companion in canada. a return to new york where they were both residents. the canadian marriage was recognized as valid in new york because of legislation in new york. when edi windsor's spouse passed away, and state tax was imposed. several hundred thousand because there was not a
recognition that they were married under the defense of merit act. edie windsor challenged the constitutionality of doma. that came to the supreme court and that was the other decision of this last wednesday. there is a standing issue in that case, too. the attorney general and the president of the united states declined to defend the constitutionality of doma. they were continuing to enforce the prohibition and insisting the federal government not refund the tax back edie windsor thought she was entitled to because she thought she was married. the united states government did not defend doma in the federal court. a committee of the house of lawyer to come in and defend the statute. the standing question in doma was whether or not, because the united states was no longer actors to windsor, there really
diversity? the supreme court was petitioned to take the case once it had lost in the second circuit with respect to the constitutionality of doma. was there adversity under article 3 or not? that issue is all over the opinions. the supreme court upheld the standing of the jurisdiction in the case and said there was sufficient adversity because united states still owed the money and the house of representatives where adequate representative to make sure there was sufficient adversity with respect to the legal issues. you have two important cases. the supreme court also had an earlier standing case involving
the surveillance program. i guess we will get to that in a little bit. the supreme court struck down an effort by journalists and others to challenge the surveillance programs on the grounds that they cannot prove they had been victims or subject of the surveillance program. the standing issue is important in these two cases and in the course of jurisprudence this year. the defense of marriage case, the decision written by justice kennedy, again, a 5-4 decision, very intense dissent by justice scalia. there were three dissenting votes. justice kennedy -- i will make this brief. i know there are time constraints here. he spent a certain amount of his opinion describing how this was a federalism issue, that states had to intentionally been the one where marriage was defined. here is the united states
government coming along and imposing a definition of marriage on the states. passionate a decision objecting to the consequence of the defense of marriage act in words that are very passionate. this places same-sex couples in an unstable couple of being in a second tier marriage. it demeans the couple whose relationship the marriage has sought to dignify by allowing the same-sex marriage. it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by the same-sex couples. the law in question makes it
more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and their daily lives. it sends a signal to them that since this about how it was a there's alltatus. this language in this opinion about how this imposes an indignity on these couples because they were a class of individuals who had no choice about their sexual orientation, their relationships were diminished. justice scalia takes very strong there are two other dissenting opinions of chief justice and justice alito. i will not mention those. you need to read this opinion. the passionate language and the response saying this is not
something that demeans individuals. it is the definition of marriage. the language is as powerful as i've ever seen it. i see them saying let's hear from the other panel. >> you say that substitution, what justice scalia did, justice -- what disavowed signing justice scalia did at the end of his opinion because justice kennedy disavowed deciding anything with regard to the constitutionality of state measures. there are 37 states left upper habit marriage between between persons of the same sex. he basically said we're not deciding the constitutionality under the due process process and equal protection laws of those state laws that continue
to limit marriage between a man and a woman. we had done somethingvery similar in the lawrence versus texas case where the supreme court upheld the right of individuals to engage in either sexual contact without being subject to punishment. if this was a car -- we're not deciding whether states must recognize relationships between those people. justice scalia said what do you mean? it you are saying it is the constitutional rights. how can you say that you are not also deciding the right to their relationship to be recognized by the state? the majority disavows that. he says do not believe it. we have a repeat of that. he is saying we are notdeciding the constitute national that the
constitutionality of those being a marriage between a man and a woman. justice scalia then takes passages from the opinion. i've never seen anything quite like this. it puts in the language of the state law and shows it is the very same language about the relationship between individuals of sexual orientation. you cannot distinguish of those statutes from what was struck down on doma. it raises questions about whether the kennedy opinion was written the way it was and -- whethere case was the perry case was a standing case or a standing decision. there are all kinds of fascinating speculations. >> i think everything you said is correct. do not listen to justice scalia.
the chief justice right separately. this is about federalism. i think you could read the opinion not the way justice scalia read it and say what was going on was the federal law undermining the dignity that was preferred by the state as opposed to just the dignity. i think it is to be seen which proved correct. >> the take away is your clients are now getting married. it is independently important beyond the context in which it arose. two questions. do you think they add this to the correct? was the aim always to get at the standing question, the question whether the proponents can then
take over the state processes that the state chooses not to defend? what do you think is the import of the standing holding.-- the import of the standing holding in your case? >> the standing was always an issue in the case. when this was filed by the proponents of proposition eight, they did not raise the standing question. the supreme court added that. our reaction was that there were four votes to take the case. why did they add that standing question? they decided unanimously. that was part of the california constitution that when the attorney general and the governor was used to defend a constitutional amendment they
would not be any difference unless someone had the right to defend that statute. there were issues of appropriate use of judicial power requiring someone to be inattentive and. -- required someone to be in there to do it. the california constitution gave them the right to do it. this harkens back to a case called arizonans for official english where a similar issue had come up there and some other cases. i thought the supreme court had really resulted by saying it was a part of our constitution that there is official recognition of the opponents during those circumstances.-- of the proponents under those circumstances. the supreme court said this is a stateal question. constitutions cannot resolve it. when the issue, when it was granted, i thought the conservatives on the court were
interested in protecting themselves against a decision on the constitutionality of proposition eight, that they foresee the possibility of five votes to strike down proposition 8 on equal protection and/or due process grounds, and thought the standing issue could convince justice kennedy to go long with a standing decision as opposed to a decision on the merits. it turned out that may have been what was going on. the speculation will go on forever. the justice kennedy was dissented from the standing decision. law professors will probably be answering these questions for years. but we thought, this is good news to cut the conservatives are really worried about a decision on the merits and they are protecting themselves by putting the standing question back end. >> john, you get the last comment.
>> that may have been what was going on. justice kennedy was descended from the standing decision. they will all probably be answering this for years. we thought this is good news. >> i am not sympathetic to same- sex marriage. this is a great criticism. this is not relevant then to our decision. it makes a very plausible argument that this is as crucial. it seems to me a a basic requirement is to articulate a rule of decision. when you go to the other basis, this is very far from the constitutional text i think legitimate the course power.-- legitimates the court's power. the two authorities, one is subject to due process. it is never defined about how you can get out to due process.
it has said that we are not going to find a route that is deeply rooted. even with equal protection, there is no equal protection clause against the government. that is the principle of that comes with the reconstruction amendments that rules out the moral considerations that are central to the debate. those are the obligations of the court to root its decision. quite apart from our policy disagreement, and i'm sorry to was asthink this opinion singular a failure as i have seen in the history of the supreme court.
>> wow.[laughter] you heard it here today. we will not take a vote of the panel on that particular proposition. john, you get to pick up the next leave here. there are an interesting pair of cases. they both involve dna. they both raise questions about law and technology of which i know you have a particular interest. would you tell us about those cases? likes these are two very different cases. they both focus on the substance. they are extremely fundamental. one is about patent. the other is about search and i'll talk about them and end with a few observations about what these cases may tell us about the way the court deals with technology. i consider this a matter of huge importance. technology driven by the relentless increase in ex financial power is accelerating across a very wide range of
biotechnology and energy. it'll generate all of these kinds of decisions. the court confronted to patent patent claims by myroad. the first was those that was for mutations that put women at serious risk of breast cancer. they anonymously rejected the claims. a long held that interventions do not include matters that actually occur in nature. they fear that would tie up tools for innovation. they rejected the argument that the chemical process they used to isolate this gene transform the dna into something that was passable.-- patentable.
this is not about the chemistry. it was about the information that was coded. it also held that complementary c- was passable.so-called dna. what is it? that includes only the information from a gene that actually creates be routine.-- the protein. the court labeled this synthetic. the c-dna does not occur in nature. it is thus able to be patented. there is a pretty thin line. a natural process naturally create the information that only focuses on the production of proteins. it is completely responsible for the sequence of information that so-called synthetic dna encodes. both patents on the full gene and the complementary dna
are valuable precisely because of their information. the court differentiates between these patents by using an implicit standard to weigh the amount of work and money to bring this to usable form and the cost of using a monopoly to -- of giving a bottleneck and a monopoly to an individual company. the cost outweighs the benefits. for court said not so. complementary dna. i call this a decision. it split it.[laughter] the next case also concerns dna. it implicates that it comes from dna has becomes. an honestly powerful tool for solving criminal cases.
it is spread around through bodily fluids or hair. it is for this reason that he says this is the most important fourth amendment case for a generation. it was sharply contested as he said taking dna was constitutional. he began by noticing that this is reasonable. he acknowledged that taking dna was a search. he said it could substantially outweighed the costs. it also advanced law enforcement legitimate interest in solving crime.also in exonerating people. that has happened through the process of dna. according to the court, the privacy was not so much greater than that involved.-- and fingerprinting.
he cause it only focused on serious crime, it is not allowed the police very much discretion. --stice scalia he acknowledged sharply dissented. said that the incidence of her rest had to be weapons or for incidents -- this was neither of those. he acknowledged that fingerprinting was alright, but that was only true for intensification and there was no interest of identification. he points out that they do not even get around to sequencing the dna for a long time after they had identified the defender. the opinion of the court embraces a standard.the reasonable us -- the reza reasonableness standard of the fourth amendment. some say that it is not.
it includes the protection of the innocent. justice scalia does not really talk about a standard. he applies a role he finds. what can be done with an incident to an arrest. this comes within one of the six exceptions. he is famous for arguing that the rule of law is the law of rules. i think he is very muchconsonant with that strong viewpoint. i do not think it is necessarily consonant with the language of the cost of tuition. the fourth amendment is quite unusually a standard but not a rule. as some cases suggest, at the court is more likely to read this as a standard if possible in dealing with kind of technology. before these can be radically different, they may not be easily added to a pastoral role. a standard allows judges to update the law by self- consciously looking at the policy considerations beyond
standards and balancing them. it should be noted that new information technology make standards more attractive. one of the row problems is it is hard to figure out what the rule is. now with new information and makes them more attractive.let me give a brief example to illustrate that. back in the 1960s the actually had a standard to drive at a reasonable speed.it was struck down. it is not give anyone any notice. looking to to drive. the future, of course, we can't think -- we think about telling people what to drive. that is an indication of how this can make standards relatively more attractive.
one other point of general interest i think emerges. it is often thought that new kind of technology that are connected to search and surveillance are simply that that are the privacy and liberty. they importantly recognizes that this is not so. it emphasizes that dna information can exonerate as well as leave the conviction. because of the power of dna to solve crime, there are fewer lineups with all of the possibilities of mistakes. fewer searches and intrusions to be authorized. in short, there may be less intrusion on privacy. in the tension between liberty and privacy on the one hand, at least sometimes it enables us to make a better trade-off.
>> i would like to elaborate a little bit and let back last term justice scalia prevailed in jones, where the question was -- was it a fourth amendment search for the police to place a gps device and checked him over the couple of weeks here it he took a concrete view. he said the framers would have regarded this as trespassing.so the first amendment applies. justice sotamayor said we are reaching the point where we have to step back and reevaluate the light of technology. i wonder if you have any reaction. >> i am much more sympathetic to what justice sotomayor has said.
again, what justice scalia was doing in that case was very similar to maryland versus king. he is creating a rule to define certain expectations from framers. i do not disagree that these can be relevant in understanding the text. it is primary. this is not a series of rules. i think it is very amenable to what she suggests. we have to really look at the cost of privacy. i think this is very much substantial. one can debate this on a balancing. that will be the debate necessary going forward. rather than creating a lot of roles that will make >> ieasingly less sense.
was going to add -- were we going to talk about the two dogs? >> we will. >> that is an important part of this. we were thinking about the gps case which was involved in an interesting concurring opinionby justice alito. justice scalia found that it was in the suspected drug dealers car she could track it without a justice alito said how'd you you get original as him out of that, because he imagined a small constable hidden in a large coach in 1789 or something like that. this whole thing -- we will get to the dog cases. the cell phones were there are cameras everywhere.speed cameras, heat measuring devices.
the resid heat measuring device that flew over a guys home and measured the heat and confirmed or provided sufficient suspicion there was marijuana growing inside the house generating this heat. and then we have the dog cases we will talk about. twitter, the things you can do that with the internet. the surveillance cases, billions of phone messages tracked or stored. all of this technology that the supreme court is having to deal with in terms of what does it mean in terms of the precedents. where are we going to find that standard? is it going to be something like trespass or reasonable expectation of privacy. whatever the heck that means. >> a raises the question about the institutional confidence of the judiciary. it was not so long ago.
i think 96 is when they have their first case related to the internet. a firsthis case.-- amendment case. reno versus aclu. at that time many of the judges had never accessed the internet. they had to bring in experts from the library of congress to speak of factual context of the communications. there is a learning curve that we are all climbing when it comes to technology. judges are climbing it too. >> today they're called law clerks. >> that is a nice point to segue. we have two cases for you dog lovers out there. they win-win and lose one.--
when one and lose one. it was a split decision. we cannot leave that off the agenda today. >> when they started talking about assignments i told him i was a junior member of the panel. there are actual dog cases. there are two cases that involve drug sniffing dogs. there is one year today. i attacked him in the hallway.-- i passed him and the hollywood. they are trained to detect narcotics or bombs. they alert the police. there are similarities between the two cases. there are enough factual differences that i will recount them for you. the first case the court decided about a german shepherd named aldo.a routine traffic stop. he was on patrol with his hammer when the officer pulled over a truck with an expired license plates. the driver of the truck was
clayton harris and he was visibly nervous and had an open can of beer. the officer asked if he could check the trunk of the truck. harris said no. the officer brought aldo over for a free air sniff. that is a practice of allowing a dog to sniff the exterior of the car. it is consistent with the first fourth amendment cents illinois versus gates in he signals that he smells drugs. 1983. i think that is the trained behavior. he concludes that he a probable cause to search the truck. he did not find any drugs there. aldo was wrong. he found a bunch of ingredients that are used to make meth. he was charged for use the sudafed for methamphetamines. then he has a second encounter [laughter]
another stop. this time he is pulled over because of a broken tail lights. aldo again alerts. this time he is wrong. there's nothing of interest in the car. in court he asked to suppress the information found in the truck the first time around. reasoning, look, aldo was wrong twice, his sniffs are unreliable. on the hearing, they talked about this extensive training they had undergone. aldo had been certified.harris decides to focus on the performance in the field, which is particularly the two mrs. with harris. misses with harris.
the trial court ruled for the state. the florida supreme court reversed. when a. alerts, the fact that he -- the dog alerts, the fact that he has been trained and certified is not enough to establish probable cause. the state has to produce evidence, training, certification record, and performance record. how often has the job been incorrect? justice kagan delivered a unanimous opinion. she explained that the florida checklist is too inflexible of a way to prove reliability and push too much emphasis on field performance where they can overstate a dog's false positive. perhaps out of alerted because harris had drug residue on his hands when he opened the door. there's a thing in the truck but perhaps it is not a good indicator that out aldo's sniffer was not up to snuff. [laughter] there should be no inflexible set of evidentiary requirements
to test a drug's reliability. a defendant could challenge the adequacy the certification and training. the field evidence could be relevant, but not dispositive. he is off the hook. the second case features frankie, a different dog. he is not so lucky. this is different. it picks up on some of the things you were speaking on. this concerns a home and not a traffic stop. police were given a tip that he was growing marijuana in his home. an officer and frankie were sent to the residence. frankie and the officer approached the front porch. the dog since one of the smells -- sensed one of the smells he had been trained to and began what they call bracketing, tracking back and forth trying to find the source of the odor. he then sits at the base of the front door to signal he has
discovered the source of the odor. on the basis, the police get a warrant. they searched the house. frankie was right. the question was whether the drug sniff itself count as a search in the understanding of a fourth amendment. justice scalia writes and says it was. it was unconstitutional. it is very similar to the opinion he offered last term and jones, the gps tracking. he again embraces the property right and this is on the fourth amendment which he says supplements the reasonable expectation of privacy. he says a person's home and the immediate surroundings of the home enjoy special protection under the fourth amendment. it is the very core of the protection. that makes this case easy. the officers gathered information by physically
entering and occupying his home. that place is constitutionally protected. the officers intruded upon it. the only real remaining question is whether the officers had an implied license to stand on the porch with frankie. it permits all types of visitors like a girl scout or trick-or- treaters to approach a home and knock and wait briefly and then leave. scalia says introducing a trained police dog is something else. we do not even need to get into expert opinions. they learned what they did by intruding on the property.
justice alito wrote the dissent. he could've lawfully approached the door and waited for the same amount of time if they have not been accompanied by frankie. he says it makes no sense that it is illegal because they were accompanied by a dog. dogs have been used in connection with law enforcement for centuries. it is not of the ordinary for the public to expect their use. it is different than the new technology. it is different. dogs have been around for years. he would not have labeled this search. unfortunately for frankie, six justices disagreed. >> the result is the dog can be right and still lose that right this of the bottom line? >> that's right.
>> i wonder if it will cause them to start thinking about what kind of dog they bring. maybe they should name it hun rather than atilla. we had a situation where people were phoning in bomb threats every afternoon of people would have to evacuate the building. one day the dog alerted on a gym bag. we had to stand out there for another couple of hours while the big truck came. it turns out this drug sniffing dog was a golden retriever. it contained a bunch of tennis balls. [laughter] it is not perfect.
>> is anyone else have any dogs sniffing stories to tell? this is sba time for the fourth circuit? fourtha time for the circuit. ?s this a comfort zone case >> he said he is more comfortable. >> he said it is somehow more clear.>> that's right. >> we have a few minutes left. can you take two or three minutes? i mentioned whether or not the roberts court ought to be thought as pro-business.there were important class action cases on the docket. it was complicated. i wonder if you could give us
this. >> there are four class action cases. if you look at the business cases, this is a pro-business court because of various decisions involving businesses. i do not agree necessarily. they are statutory construction cases. a lot depends on your federalism and things like that.are statutory interpretation. usually these will come up in the context of antitrust cases, class actions, state portions of action. discrimination cases, retaliation cases. three of these came out in favor of the defendant. the last of which was a case involving american express. the principal, the one that
cannot in favor of the plaintiff you did not have to prove materiality. this was a 6-3 decision. one decision suggested if you looked at all these cases and look at the walmart case from two terms ago which the supreme court unanimously was very strict with respect to the requirements, there was a similar decision today. i cannot remember the exact title. the other area that intersects with this came together in this american express case. it was an arbitration clause in the contract between american
express and the establishments that it does business with. it included an arbitration provision and an exclusion of class action and the way a merchant could bring a small case asserting that american express was violating the antitrust laws. justice kagan -- it was as 63 3 decision. 6- justice kagan wrote a very interesting dissent stating that that if your anti- class action everything is a she went on to explain this as a whole lot more than a class-action case. it should not have come out on the basis of that. it does demonstrate -- justice ginsburg is quitef
civil procedure. the outcome of these cases is not necessarily predictable. the court is looking very carefully at class actions. looking very carefully at short cases and the whole management of what happens in civil process in our court. >>ck linda, quick comment? it is not so much that the court is a pro-business court, but it is an anti-litigation court. the discovery cases. where the court is a pro- business court, we do not have time to get through the seven new employment discrimination cases that came out this last week interpreting title vii as -- it is to conflict hated to go into. dissentginsburg earl was very reminiscent of her dissent in the ledbetter case which led to congressial
reenactment of that provision of title vii. perhaps the same thing might happen this time. >> we do have a couple of minutes left. i want to put one general question on the table. looking back at the comments i made at the outset about the country of the court in the process the court had, i was struck by the colloquy between justice kennedy and justice doma case.he and the majority opinion justice kennedy speaks of the supreme " int's "my merry rule determining the constitutionality of a law. and does this scalia, even by his standards, had a scathing dissent. he said this is a draw dropping assertion of judicial supremacy. it envisions a supreme court standing he has enthroned at the
acidly " adds rather or rather enthroned at the apex of governments." one may note that the day before he joined in casting down section four of the voting rights act. maybe to bring us closer on term'sooking at the major decisions that we have talked about, what do they tell us about the collective of what the courts job is in democracy. it is interesting when you think stand the individual cases. back from it a bit and say what is the court up to?
what is going on with kennedy and scalia debating points like this? who wants to jump in and tackle that? >> this is something i tell my students. no theory has a market on that argument about judicial restraint. i think it can be used by anyone in dissent when they are upset at the decision to strike down an act of congress. i am not sure i believe it is something we can ascribe to the roberts court's. and not to other passports. it is a rhetorical argument you could say when you're not in the majority. that might be kind of skeptical. >> i think there are fundamental differences. it is not a surprise as --mething that is not well that the court is the primary exit or of the constitution and he is really someone, at least
in the area of the bill of rights, who believes in an evolving constitution. he is going to do the evolution. the court might be a better -- a better. institutional of oliver of the constitution. it is very important to understand justice kennedy as someone who believes the constitution should be moved ahead the abstract principles, sometimes that is obscured. he is per trade as a left liberal. he is not a left liberal. he is a libertarian. he still believes the court has this ability to see these principles that have evolved in society. this is very connected to his vision of the court. >> not on the docket would be
kennedy opinions on cruel and unusual punishment cases. there up in a lot of those, typically dealing with things like what sort of punishment you can make for juveniles. it supports a cruel and unusual punishment which most see as an evolving standard. it could go on as a more general debates. do you want to comment? >> i think these have come out throughout history.i was just thinking back 10 years ago when the rehnquist court shocked the should ministration by getting , andthe guantanamo case becoming superintendent of what the rule of law was going to apply at guantanamo. the administration did not expect that at all. i think that was a moment when the majority, and
we have to stand up and show our hands. at it is important to keep rooted in the larger context in which these interbranch disputes emerge. that always informs how we understand them. >> this debate about standing id matrs should not be in courts. the scalia dissent in the doma case goes back where president washington was asking for an interpretation of the treaty. they wrote very politely back to the president that is not our business. we are not in the business of writing advisory opinions. it is interesting that he goes as far back as that. he's very concerned on very
restrictive rules with respect to what matters belong in courts. once you acknowledge that it belongs there, you can decide it can't get there in the door, then you can't decide that what they don't have have if they are allowed to consider a wide variety of things. this standing issue is going to keep coming back. this klapper issue, now that we have learned more about the surveillance program, and whose numbers are being collected at nsa. that case will come back again. we will see some more standing discussion. it will be interesting. it is about the rule of law and the role of courts. >> it you watch oprah winfrey, they are suggesting you go home and find a good book to read. ours is somewhat different.
i hope we whetted your appetite to go home and read some cases. [laughter] lawyers and judges do that all the time. we try to sit up there a lot of cases we could have suggested you write and pick out a few that must be reading when the time comes. thank you for having us here. thank you to the panelists for engaging in the conversation of the court. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] click supreme court -- >> supreme court chief justice john roberts spoke this past weekend. he talked about his time on the sequestration and
budget concerns will impact the court. this is about 40 minutes. >> always keep your audience is waiting. yes, yes. [applause] it is great to see you. >> good to see you. >> thank you. very much.u you need not panic. i'm not going to give a speech. i just went to have a brief comment before i sit down with judge wilkinson for our conversation. i think these conferences are very valuable because they give the members of the bench and the members of the bar a chance to get together and understand the different perspectives they have a little better. it wasn't as necessary in the earlier days when the judges and the lawyers interacted on a
daily basis. like the time when the barrister was arguing before a judge in england and he said, lord, i have three arguments today, one of which is a complete dead since winner for my side. cinch winner. go of which is 50-50, could either way. and one of which is privileged. at the judge said by all means begin with the strong argument. lawyer said, oh, my lord, i have no intention of saying which is which. [laughter] of course i cannot talk about the cases we just decided. the opinions speak for themselves. which always makes me wonder what you all are here. at i will share a few things about the court in the past year, beginning with some statistics in 73dispose of cases
signed opinions. we had five cases from the fourth circuit. we decided 60%, which is quite a bit better than the average of 72%. if you look deeper, one of the cases was only reversed because we expressed, over my dissent, a rule over an existing president. is a success rate of 60% really quite good these days. we had 45 cases set for the next term of the court beginning the first monday in october. that is more than usual. as a result, i will be able to schedule a few extra cases in the fall. we will hear three a day instead of the average to a day,
which might allow us to ease up on the april argument so we can get our work done without a mad rush at the end. what a fantasy that is. [laughter] we did have some exciting changes at the court this year. historically on mondays we have announced our new orders for the week and had oral argument both at 10:00. the press corps asked if we could move up the release of the 9:30 so they would have a chance to consider those without missing any argument time. i tried very hard to come up with a reason to say no, but i could not, so we made that change. so the reporters now have the option of writing about the 9:30 orf they see at attending arguments at 10:00 or
taking the day off. last time i reported on our construction of the court. i indicated we were close to completion. once again we are close to completion. the project turns out to be an example of a paradox, and idea that an area that gets halfway toward the target every second continually progresses but will never quite reach the target. that is apparently how our construction project is going. we thought things were wrapping up and we discovered we had very extensive damage to the exterior of the building caused ,y weathering, acid rain, birds and we discovered this pretty much the way newton discovered gravity. things started falling off the building, nearly landed on some people like newton's apple. so, we have to work on that. it will take another couple years before that is finished.
we had to put scaffolding up in front of the court, which we don't like to do. we put a really delightful scrim over the runt is remarkable -- over the front which is remarkable. you look at it and you cannot even sell it is a building. at least visitors get a sense of what the building should look like without the scaffolding. things are so dug up you would think we were looking for jimmy hoffa or something. i did want to echo something the chief judge said last night. that is a tribute to judge hogan for his work as the head of the administrative office. i prevailed upon him to agree to spend one year in the job. my plan was to entice him with the many sources of entertainment the job provides
into staying longer. it worked for almost a full year, for which i am very grateful. tom leaves the post in the able hands of the judge from the district of columbia. tom wanted me to announce that john begins his job officially on monday. any inquiries and complaints should be directed to john. tom also wanted me to announce john's cell phone no. but i do-- some number, but i don't think i will do that. the service john is undertaking is emblematic of the service so many in this room provide to the judiciary in the case of judges above and beyond their obligations. that is in epitomized by the chief judge that serves as the chairman of the executive committee of the judicial conference, an enormously important position for which i am very grateful.
now i think i will sit down with jay and have a little talk.thank you. [applause] jay? thank you. >> welcome. i want to thank my colleague who judge gregory for his leadership in this wonderful and educational conference. this was virginia's year told a conference. i know the commonwealth joins in the appreciation of judge gregory's distinguished service and shares the appreciation his colleagues have. thank you for all you have done to put this conference on. i want to say a word about chief judge traxler and the
magnificent leadership he has provided to the fourth circuit. he is held in the greatest respect by all members of the court. we are lucky to have a chief judge of his caliber. thank you for being here. you have been through a grueling term. i am sure you would love nothing better than to spend time with your family. the fact you have come to join a throng of lawyers and judges, we are ever so appreciative. i cannot begin to express the respect and appreciation with which you are held for of the judiciary for the dedicated service you have given us. it is a very hard job.
we appreciate the warmth and dedication and sterling character of your leadership. it is a pleasure to be part of a court system with you at the head. >> i like this conversation so far. [laughter] do not let me interrupt. [laughter] >> you can interrupt any time you want. chief rehnquist was here for you clerked for him. he was your mentor. when we did the supreme court review session, it always amazed me the music and poetry that chief justice rehnquist new. --knew.
he would begin each session with a quotation from sir thomas gray's elegy in a courtyard. upny a gem the caverns bear. your astray serene the dark unfathomed waves of oceans bear for many a flower is born to blush unseen its sweetness wasted in the desert air. some of the flowers may be some of the cases that did not merit the headlines or public discussion like some of the marquee cases did. they were nevertheless very important in the lives of ordinary americans. i wonder if there were any blushing flowers in the desert from this last term that went unnoticed.
>> there are always are. if you look at the cases we have come out of 77, there are maybe half a dozen people will be talking about at panel discussions and things like that. some of the little ones can be fascinating. my favorite from the past turned involved the question of the-- involve the fustian of the admiralty and jurisdiction of what counts as a vessel. the way cases develop in the law, you have things that do not fit comfortably into a category, it was either a floating home or a houseboat depending on what side you are on. it was attached to the shore but could be disengaged and would float and could be towed. issue was whether it was a vessel or not. it is one of those things where
a picture is worth 1000 words. it looks like a house that got swept into the ocean rather than a boat. the court did hold it was not a vessel. we had a lot of fun looking at the different characteristics and posing interesting hypothetical at the argument. we had a bankruptcy case that was surprising. i am sure practitioners -- it may not have been as much of a surprise to them. there was a term in the bankruptcy law and had been for 150 years that applied when you were not entitled to discharge its debt in bankruptcy, when you are guilty of defalcation. i had not heard the word before. in jurisprudence, we often quote dictionaries to get a better
impact with the increasing cuts of the sequester -- of the sequester. >> even people who aren't interest in a vital the administration of justice and these cuts are really going to the heart of that process, whether you are talking about keeping them open, in terms of funding not just judiciary but the justice department. if they are not working, they are bringing cases. the cases get held up. the pace of justice which is already too slow in most cases is held up even more. everybody makes a special pleading in the time of this sort. you should not cut our budget because of this, cut everybody else but not us. the judiciary does have a special case to make. we're less than 1% of the
federal budget. you get a whole branch of government under the constitution for relative pennies. the idea we have to be swept along because it is good public policy to cut everybody -- i am not commenting on that policy, but the notion we should be it is really unfounded. the cuts hit as particularly hard. we are made up of people. it is not like we're the pentagon where we can show the procurement. people have to be furloughed or worse. that has a more direct impact on the service. in general it will be a very cold winter of austerity. we're going to have to bundle up. >> will this get increasingly
worse? is theto be up to mystic administrative office conductor after that by john bates is working very hard for the people across the street to get them to go to bat for us. i want to say publicly i think the appropriators in congress are the best legislators since henry clay and daniel webster. you can quote me on that if you like. [laughter] >> we may have touched on this before. there is of the recurrent subject of the hot bench. a hot bench is one asks a lot of questions. as someone who follows the court with the greatest interest, the supreme court bench seemed to get hotter and hotter.
there are more and more questions coming from the justices. i wonder if the lawyers are able to get in a word in edgewise or whether the adversarial process has become one of more dialogue between the justices as opposed to the clash of views between the lawyers. i have the same concern at the court of appeals. the lawyers have spent weeks and months preparing their case. the oral argument means
everything to them. they sometimes come to court and leave and feel like we have not gotten it out because we have been bombarded by questions from the bench. i know if the bench is too passive, they wonder if the justices have prepared the case. this seems an exceptionally hot bench in historical terms on the supreme court. as a former advocate yourself, is this a good development? >> first of all, there are excuses. i am not sure everyone understands this. we do not talk about cases before the argument. when we get on the bench, it is the first time we start to get clues about what our colleagues
think. we are using questions as a way to bring out points we think our colleagues ought to know about. we do intend to debate each other through counsel. that is an explanation. it is not meant as an excuse. i think you are right. we do over do it. i do think the event has gotten more aggressive. recent appointees have tended to be more active in questioning than the justices they replaced. there's nothing bad about either of them. it is just a fact. i have had to act as an umpire in terms of the competition among my colleagues to get questions out. they are not being rude, but you do not always pick up in the acoustics the fact that one of your colleagues is already asking a question. i do think we have gone too far. we have talked about it a little bit. we try to make sure we do not prevent a lawyer from reserving
argument time for rebuttal by asking questions when he is trying to sit down. it is too much. i do think we need to address a little bit. i do think the lawyers feel cheated sometimes. it is nice for us to get a good feel about where everyone else is. it also would be nice for them to have the chance to present their argument. i am sure i am as guilty as most from time to time. i remember one time i told my colleagues let's not interrupt the lawyers when the white light is on signaling they have five minutes left. i found myself asking questions when the white light was on. you get wrapped up in the dynamics and forget to ease up a bit. >> this is sort of a personal question. for years before you went on the bench, if you were one of the most distinguished of public
advocates in the nation before the court of appeals and a large number of cases, you were arguing before the supreme court. do you miss your former life occasionally? do you have the impulse to be an attorney again? do you miss the satisfaction of that? you were so good at it for so many years. you had to leave it all behind. >> if it were the day that a client was paying their bill, i would jump over the side of the bench. when i became chief justice, i found out i had no idea i was as good as people tell me i was at the time. i think the judges would say the same thing. you miss it. i miss the competitive edge. on the court, we do not win or lose.
you have a particular position you think is the correct understanding of the constitution. one of your colleagues may have a different view. you debate internally and through memoranda. the court goes one way or the other. i never felt i lost a case or that i had won a case. we were both working to the same end. we ended up where we ended up. as a practicing lawyer, you do when or lose. you have to make the call to the client because it does not want to hear that we hope the court reached a resolution. they want to know whether they win or lose. it does give an edge to your work. it is a wonderful bar at the court these days. it was when i was practicing as well. you tended to be on the same side as your fellow appellate
practitioners in some cases and on the opposite side in others. you were able to work together well. i enjoy it. i have no great desire to go back. >> sometimes i feel like writing a letter to losing lawyer to say i know you lost the case, but you gave the better argument. too bad it is not moot court. that would be of small comfort because you cannot take a letter to the client. >> it is a funny business because we are not picking the best lawyer. you are right. i know the best argument i ever thought i gave was for a losing cause and vice versa. the worst i ever gave happened to be on the right side of the court. >> i would like to ask about the membership and composition of the court.
when one looks historically at the court and their past experiences, you get chief justice william howard taft. he was a former president of the united states. you get chief justice charles hughes who was a former presidential candidate. at one time, i think the supreme court had three former united states senators with hugo black and harold burton. then justice powell was a former president of the bar association. thurgood marshall was the chief litigator for the naacp. before coming on the court, they
were giants of public life. now we have a situation where the immediate past experience of the court's membership with the exception of justice kagan, they all come with sometimes extensive experience on the court of appeals. do not get me wrong. i love court of appeals judges. i wonder when the supreme court draws from this narrow band of the immediate prior experience whether we're missing something in terms of the court's ability to relate to some of the larger aspects of american life. if you get a former appeals court judges whether it becomes more technocratic as opposed to those in times past. is this a danger? >> you were very delicate the way you phrased this. you have william howard taft who was a president. earl warren was a governor.
then you. [laughter] i like to the beginning of the conversation better. it has to be enormously significant what you are saying. you have courts that were made up of governors, senators, people like felix frankfurter, different backgrounds. it might be accurate to say more prominent statesmen. it was an historical anomaly before justice kagan you have entirely people who had been on
federal appeals courts before. that has to have an impact on the work. i do not know yet if it is a positive one or not. if you think the job of the supreme court is trying to apply the law to particular cases, maybe it makes sense to have a court of judges. if you view it as more in terms of playing a political role as part of the political process, maybe the way a constitutional court in european countries does, maybe it makes sense to have people who have been active in the political realm. it has to be saying something about the role of the court in terms of what the make of this. you see in the arguments as well. we have a very good bar. they present legal arguments. if you go back and look at briefs filed in the warren era, they paint with a broader brush
it reflected the audience there were in front of. people can and should debate whether that is a good development or not. i think one consequence is it is probably a good development if you have a sense of what type of issues should be presented to the supreme court. a different sense of whether it is good or bad if you think different types of issues should be before the supreme court.
it is all interrelated, the background of the judges and the issues presented. it is an interesting development people need to think about. >> having a broad experience in elected life or high public office is no guarantee one will be a successful justice. hugo black was one of the great justices. there were two other senators with whom he served that i do not think anyone would say were great justices. it is hard to draw a correlation. >> if you have been a president or senator, you have a particular way of looking at issues, matters of public policy. if you have been a judge on the court of appeals, you have a different way of looking at it. you have to decide what type of questions you think the court
should be deciding and if they call for people who have one way of looking at public policy as opposed to technocrats. i do not think that is the right word. but a more focused way of dealing with the law. you may think there is a mismatch between the type of questions the court is being asked to decide and the personnel that have to decide it. you can resolve the tension one way or another. it is not a coincidence or happenstance you have a court that looks so different from what it looked like in the past. >> one of my favorite parts of our conversations is to ask you i think it is one of the most fun parts for the membership.
before we head off into the summer. we're all interested in getting relaxation and reading some good books and seeing some good movies. we're always interested in what books you have been reading and what movies you might recommend. people are interested as to what we should put in our suitcase to take to the beach. what are you reading these days? >> i mentioned a little while ago we already have 45 cases that for the fall. [laughter] i do not want to be seen as endorsing any book. i picked one up the other day i have not begun to read. it had a very good review in the "wall street journal." of course i can not remember the author or the title. it is about the 20 most significant battles in world history. the author began with the romans carrying all the way through
iraq. it looks nice. it gives you 20 pages about the particular battle and an overview of the history in general of that time. that is what i will be reading on the plane. >> very good. are there questions from the audience? we're running short of time. we would be happy to take a question or two from the audience if you have one for the chief justice. >> good morning. my name is dana moore. i graduated from law school at a time when the women were scarce but the bourbon was plentiful. i have a suggestion that he read a book written by professor larry gibson. he will give you a sense of what
the path to greatness looks like and what makes for a great justice. >> thank you very much. "young thurgood." i saw the one-person play and cannot remember the actor who did it. it was just called "thurgood." it was a spectacular performance. it was a one-person show that went through his life from youth until the end. it was changes in the tone or posture that convey the notion of ongoing time. it was a wonderful, gripping performance. they were talking about turning it into an hbo type show. and i hope that they do.
>> do we have a final question for the chief justice? >> you have talked about a hot bench. what are the best ways for the lawyer at the podium to handle the bench effectively and be able to make his or her case? what would be the tips you would give that practitioner? >> it is difficult. you do have to try to keep track of the questions. i remember one case i was arguing. somebody would ask the question and somebody else would jump in before you could answer. a third one before you could answer. justice stevens asked me a question. before i could answer, one of his colleagues jumped in with another question. before i could answer that, another question. i have been told you should try to go back and catch up. i did.
i answered the best i could the third one. then the second one. i was feeling very proud of myself and turned to justice stevens and said i do not think i had an opportunity to answer your question. he had a very warm smile on his face. i was smiling back at him and realized i had forgotten completely what his question was. i mumbled something about the case and his smile faded. [laughter] the one thing you cannot do is show any kind of impatience. i have found sometimes the most effective thing is to stop talking for a while instead of trying to get something in while everyone else is talking. if you stand there, the justices will realize there is somebody who is supposed to be speaking who is waiting for us to get finished.
if you are the lawyers and the justices are bouncing questions off of you, if you do not play along, it is hard for them to keep it up. next term, there will be nothing but lawyers standing there saying nothing. [laughter] it is a challenge. it is worth trying different things. it is almost quietly scolding the bench for not giving the lawyer the time he or she deserves. it might be effective. >> may i ask that you remain seated while we adjourn the conference. may we also express our appreciation for the wonderful visit of the chief justice to the fourth circuit court of appeals. i cannot tell you what a pleasure and honor is to have you with us. >> thank you. appreciate that. [applause] well done. thank you very much.
>> this week will bring you the oral argument inside the closely watched questions. it reveals a provision in the voting right act here on c-span. this week the national cable association holds its annual meeting in washington called the cable show. we will show you panels with the sec commissioners. as he sits down with the journalists and executives from sunshine for the future of digital media. you can see this at 6:30 p.m. eastern. we will show you what gary kelly
has to say about air travel. we will open phone lines and get your thoughts and what advice you give the government. in oldthe same question town alexandria just outside washington, dc. i would say keep further streamlining the security and make sure that is safe for us. at the same time, make it a process that is comfortable for like we're being completely violated. i think that would be complete improvement. >> they will have the opportunity to have prices for their customers. >> is there any information you are of? >> one would be the ones are able to pay when there sits on the tarmac. oftentimes times they are not able to fly rather than take
the risk of staying on the tarmac. i think they would be more successful if we took that away and they could make this decision for themselves. i find no fewer than 20 times a month. our government would benefit from reining in on some of these practices. i mean airlines have gotten lazy. you go in. emergency and it is a week before fight happens, you pay exorbitant fees. theink these would make significantly better. the start at 8:00 eastern. you can also leave a comment on our facebook page about your advice to the government of u.s. air travel.
.oday is canada's day in thewas established act joined three provinces into one country. canadaotia and the province. stephen harper adjust the british parliament for the first time since william mackenzie king. this is just over half an hour. >> if you can please rise for the prime minister. [applause]
>> prime minister cameron, your excellency's, parliamentary colleagues from both houses, ladies and gentlemen. it is for me an enormous pleasure and an undoubted privilege to be able today here to introduce the prime minister of canada, stephen harper to you and to do so in a personal and official capacity. the prime minister is no stranger to the ways of westminster thing a politician of considerable rage as well of a standing international tradition. there is far more he could tell thennd me about this place i could tell him about the parliament in ottawa.
it was my privilege to get to load the nonbiased -- the longest-serving one. and more recently to have a rapport with the youngest occupants of the fear. this is less a diplomatic engagement than a long-standing threats. it is all the more appealing for having this. i hope you feel at home. you certainly should do so. the ties between our two countries are so strong it is almost him billick will. it has long been fashionable in the united kingdom to describe our american counterparts. i would not for one moment to repudiate that association. canadians are our cousins in so many respects.
and first cousins at that. rather than those of the same blood but at certain times removed. i have enjoyed the incredible warmth and half the talent he of your nation in my time so far as speaker. that willxperience always remain with me. your parliament is a wonderful institution. in truth, we also have much to learn from it. run your good self and from canada at large. the lessons are political and social. politically you have the experience of government without a single party majority before we did. the question of how best to design this within a democracy. socially, you have tackled an age of economic uncertainty and how to assimilate many new
citizens into one community. canada has always struck me as a country of optimism. it is an admirable quality which you personally embody. it is a huge privilege to welcome you to this lays into this audience. , thank you for coming here today, for representing the canadian people and to speaking with us. [applause] thank you lord speaker, mr. speaker, prime minister, deputy prime minister, leader of the opposition, lords and members of the house of commons, colleagues. for anyone who fully understands and truly cherishes our free and
democratic institutions and their nature and the long history upon which they rest there is no honour to compare with an invitation to stand here, at the very cradle of our political system and to address the members of the parliament of westminster. canada is in many ways such a different country from yours, with our vast geography, our many cultures, and our two national languages ,a heritage yet, at their very core, our canadian institutions of government are most profoundly indebted to their british ancestors for both their shape and their remarkable durability. and so, as a canadian, i am deeply honoured, and profoundly humbled to be here. mr. speaker, thank you also for your kind words of welcome.
and prime minister, i am reminded of your generous compliments before the parliament of canada two years ago, and your warm hospitality over the past one, upon the occasion of the diamond jubilee celebrations for her majesty the queen, and the funeral of former prime minister margaret thatcher. might i say in response how much i have admired your determined efforts and your wise and principled leadership during these past few years, as we have dealt with the difficult and critical issues facing our countries and the world, issues which require the best of what has always made britain unique and strong, and which you have plainly and repeatedly demonstrated. and, of course, it goes without saying, that i have also valued your friendship, which is without price. i would also be remiss, while here in london, if i did not extend the very best wishes of the canadian people, to the duke of edinburgh, for his good health and to the duke and duchess of
cambridge, as they prepare to welcome their first child. now ladies and gentlemen, some will tell you that i am the second canadian prime minister to address the british parliament. the truth be told, i am the third. it is true that william lyon mackenzie king was the only other prime minister of canada to address a gathering such as this. but andrew bonar law often addressed this parliament, during the 1920s, in his capacity as prime minister of great britain. and he was also canadian, born in new brunswick, just a few leagues removed from the place where my own ancestors settled after arriving from england in 1774. however, with due respect to bonar law, it is the former
cke ki, whom i now wish to refer. in may 1944, at the invitation of sir winston churchill, he addressed the members of this parliament. a few years before that, in the darkest days of the second world war, churchill himself had delivered his famous "some chicken, some neck" speech to the parliament of canada. as the master orator that he was, churchill had heaped fulsome, and i must say, well deserved praise, upon canada's remarkable contribution to the war effort. now, it was king's turn. he did not disappoint, and there is much in his remarks that bears repetition, nearly seventy years later. he spoke of friendship. he spoke of timeless principles. and he spoke of the power of the values that we share to call forth from us the very best parts of our character. canada's entry into the war, he said, was not from obligation,
but "was the outcome of our deepest political instinct, a love of freedom and a sense of justice." and he spoke of the fraternity of those countries that, when they look at themselves, see something of the values they inherited from great britain. my friends, the uncertainties and the challenges before us today are plainly different and i dare say lesser, than those of the 1940s. true values, however, do not change, though they may be at times forgotten. allow me, therefore, to suggest that in times of difficulty, recourse to such values, and to the friends who share them is just as relevant today as it was when the fate of our civilization itself, rested in the hands of greater men such as churchill and king. now is not the time, therefore, to doubt our values or our friends, or, indeed, ourselves. rather, now is the time to re- discover our values, to reaffirm their importance and to fall
back upon them. britain and canada may not be today the largest economies in the world, nor the biggest military powers, nor the greatest in terms of population. but i believe we share things that are more lasting, 800 years of constitutional order and evolution that has allowed us to achieve what others wish for, to choose our governments and to hold them accountable. to worship god, in our own way, and to live in harmony with neighbours who do so differently, and to enjoy standards of living once considered unimaginable, while aiding our fellow citizens in their times of illness, unemployment and need.
these are the things to which ordinary men and women the world over aspire, many of which first arose here in the generations brought forth on this very soil. and so, what we need for the new challenges of a new world is not a new set of values. it is the steadfast resolve to fully apply those time-honoured principles that we already know work. certainly, that has been the canadian approach to the economy which, i know, prime minister, is the top priority for both your government and mine. for example, in canada, we have proceeded on the conviction that we must live within our means, make sound, long-term decisions, and reward hard work and those who play by the rules. we also know that, all things being equal, a dollar in a citizen?s own pocket is more beneficial than a dollar in the hands of sir humphrey appleby. now, i often tell you that in canada, some have come to believe that sir humphrey is a real person.
indeed, early on i have to tell you a former senior canadian public servant informed me that "yes, prime minister" is not a comedy; it is a documentary. so, friends, knowing these things, in canada, when times were good, we ran surpluses, and we used them. not to expand the state, but to pay down debt and to lower taxes. as a result, since our government came to office, the average canadian family now pays about $3,300 (about 2,200 pounds) less in federal taxes every year. canada now also has the lowest rate of tax on new business investment in the g-7. consequently, we are widely regarded as the best place in the world to do business, and we have the best post-recession job creation record among the major
developed economies. our values also tell us, as you have put it, prime minister, that you cannot borrow your way out of a debt crisis.? in canada, we have no debt crisis, so during the recession we were able, to deliberately borrow to sustain economic activity and confidence, but in a way that was timely, targeted and temporary. and we are now returning, gradually but surely, to a balanced budget, without raising taxes. i know that, in many countries, there is a considerable debate between austerity and growth. let me tell you, it is a false dichotomy.
you need good measures of both. in canada, we are investing record amounts in drivers of future growth like research, innovation, skills and infrastructure. yet we are also fiscally responsible, finding substantial reductions and efficiencies in government, and ensuring that vital social programs target those genuinely in need and will be financially sustainable for the generations to come. another value whose certainty has been repeatedly proven, though sadly sometimes more in the breach than in the application, is that everyone gains in an open economy. our businesses grow when new markets are opened. hard-working families find that their money goes further when they have wider choices at lower prices. and everybody gains, when they specialize in doing what they do best. therefore we have resisted calls for protectionism. we said no to those who would
tear up our trade agreements and build economic walls around our country. in fact, we are doing the opposite. we have reduced tariffs unilaterally, giving canada the first tariff-free manufacturing sector in the g-7. liberalized trade is at the heart of our economic action plan. since coming to office, our government has concluded trade agreements with nine countries, and has begun trade talks with [the king fifty more. french] and it remains our hope that we will soon achieve a comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the european union, canada?s second-largest trading partner after the united states.
step a monumental one, in fact: a joint canada-eu study has shown that a commercial agreement of this type would increase two-way trade by 20 percent. now in this matter, as in global trade matters generally, prime minister, i should like to express my deep appreciation to you and to your government, for your robust advocacy on behalf of this agreement. it will be a great benefit to all of our citizens.[applause] of course, when it comes to creating jobs, growth, and long- term prosperity, friends there is no silver bullet, only clear objectives, consistent application and hard work. that is what we are doing in canada. that is why the canadian economy has created one million new jobs, one million net new jobs, since the end of the recession, why more people are working in
canada today than ever before. sometimes there is pain, to be sure. but, a nettle once firmly grasped is on its way to being pulled out by the roots. prime minister, in this regard, i acknowledge and applaud your own leadership in taking tough decisions to reign in spending. both at home, and within the councils of the g-8 and g-20, the responsible actions of your government have set a powerful and necessary example to other nations as they grapple with massive sovereign debts of their own. and i know you are making the tough decisions, because you believe, because you understand, they are the right decisions, the necessary decisions.
countries that do not bring their finances under control or that close their economies to the world, will face consequences.him and those consequences are not only economic. in the absence of solvency, relevancy will also disappear. nothing can lead more quickly and more completely to diminished influence in the world than the decline of economic performance and financial credibility. should we fail to faithfully adhere to our values in economic matters the wider values that we wish to protect for all humanity, values of freedom, democracy and justice, of dignity, compassion and security, those values will almost certainly be eroded. and they will be eroded friends at a time, when they are most
needed. because for good to happen in this world, someone must speak up for these values, and have the will and the capacity to act, so that these values are not mere sentiments. i speak of the courage to denounce oppressors and aggressors, to counter extremist ideologies, and to confront the abominations that must not be tolerated. lord speaker, mr. speaker, distinguished guests, i know there are many here among us who could tell a hundred stories about how such values have guided our generations to this very day. from the war of 1812, to the great conflict that brought churchill and king together, to the dusty landscapes of afghanistan in our own time, britons and canadians have
pursued what is right in the world, often at great cost. the most recent example is libya, where, under your global leadership, prime minister, and under the military command of lieutenant-general bouchard of the royal canadian air force, a nation that faced massive and imminent slaughter at the hands of the psychotic architect of the lockerbie horror, was given its freedom and the opportunity (not yet fully grasped) of a peaceful and democratic future. we have also clung jointly to our values in the south atlantic, supporting the right of free people living on small islands to determine their own future. frankly, though, friends, that pales today in comparison to the all too many, dangerous situations of a truly global nature, situations where, as societies
based on values and principles, we are called upon to recognize evil, even if, the actions we should undertake are sometimes far from self- evident. in the pacific, a cold-war totalitarian state, north korea, lingers on, determined as ever to present a real and growing danger to regional security. in the middle east, its only true western democracy endures, but israel does so amidst an unrelenting hostility to its very existence by many of its neighbours. a sorry testament to the persistent hatred of the jewish people, and the moral relativism in so much of world affairs that provides shelter to such anti- semitism. but no such nuance can attach to the government of iran and its determination to acquire nuclear weapons. iran?s leaders openly brag that they will eliminate israel from the face of the earth.
this is a profoundly malevolent regime that threatens us all, and whose first victims are the iranian people themselves. canada will continue to urge the international community to show steadfast resolve on iran in the days ahead. meanwhile, the iranian ally in syria is locked in a bloody war with its own people. and herein lies a grotesque dilemma: decent people agree that assad must go, that syria?s government must represent all its people, including its minorities. yet the extremist, sectarian nature of much of the opposition cannot be ignored or wished away. syria cannot be allowed to become another safe haven for the hydra-heads of terrorism.
such monsters already lurk far too close to home, as we have seen in the murder of drummer rigby, god rest his soul and bless his family, and the foiled plot in canada to sabotage a via rail express. now of course, not every global challenge is one of security, nor should every response be military in nature. even as we deal with the economic challenges our citizens face at home, we should never compare our problems with the brutal deprivation that is the daily reality for still far too many of our fellow human beings in much of the world. in canada, we take pride in our leadership, begun at muskoka in 2010, to reduce the appalling mortality among children and young mothers in the developing world. and, prime minister, we salute you and your government for the fact that, even as you have
grappled with enormous budgetary pressures, you have continued your world-leading efforts in so many areas of humanitarian and development assistance. we also fully support your initiative to help ensure that the citizens of emerging economies get a fair deal when others develop their resources. that is why i announced yesterday, in advance of the g- 8, that canada will establish new mandatory reporting standards for the payments canadian extractive companies make to governments foreign and domestic. we also firmly believe in the principle that widespread prosperity can only be achieved where there are stable, transparent governments, absent corruption, and fortified by a respect for human rights and a commitment to the rule of law. we value all of these objectives for the world?s poorest. but, make no mistake, if we wish
to spread prosperity to others, we must be prosperous ourselves. without prosperity, there can be no aid. indeed, without prosperity, we will have little ability to project any of our values anywhere. and, of course, we cannot hope to effectively spread these values unless we live by them ourselves and demonstrate our own success by virtue of doing so. lord speaker, mr. speaker, distinguished guests, i believe this is the challenge we face in the west today. there are massive shifts, shifts of epic dimensions, taking place in the world economy. to the extent this means that traditionally less fortunate people are beginning to enjoy prosperity, and the other fruits of our values, much of this is a good thing. but there are also, as there have always been, rising powers
that do not share our values, and dangerous forces that seek to destroy them. we cannot, in the face of this, be at all complacent or, as i have said elsewhere, we cannot entertain the notion, as i think some in the west do, that our wealth and influence can be assumed, that they are some kind of birthright. i know, prime minister, that neither of our governments think that, which is why we take the difficult decisions we do, to ensure our people will remain among the most fortunate and prosperous for the generations to come. but, just as we cannot be complacent about our wealth, neither can we allow our peoples, in these times of tough decisions and shifting fortunes, to become fatalistic. i mentioned some leaders of earlier generations. prime ministers churchill and king. certainly they would never, in the depths of war, countenance
any notion of inevitable defeat, indeed, churchill?s words against any such thinking are among the most powerful ever uttered in the english language. but perhaps the more relevant example today is that of mrs. thatcher, who, in a time of peace, refused to accept any suggestion of inevitable decline. she did so, not as an expression of good cheer, but as a matter of resolve and action, and so in her time britain rose once more. in fact, i would say that dealing with difficult times and moving forward is what our two countries do, have often done together, and have done very well. and go on, we shall, to prosper and to lead, if we are true to our values, and unshakably resolved not to fail. lord speaker, mr. speaker, distinguished guests, you have been generous with your time. so, let me just close with this.
some years after prime minister king delivered his speech here the people of canada sent you a gift, the handsome table gracing the floor of your house of commons, part of an allied effort to rebuild the chamber after the damages of war. a gift, no doubt, to remind you of the defence of britain by canadians done, from the outset, voluntarily and passionately, not simply out of the value of friendship, but also because of the friendship of values. i ask that, if you happen to find yourselves looking at that table, think of us in canada. perhaps not your most powerful friends, but your truest and most reliable and know, that as we tackle the great challenges of this and future eras. we shall face them together, always, and we will succeed. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]
the parliaments and the united kingdom speak for themselves. the common ground that we share bears testimony to the bonds burnished by years of cooperation and mutual understanding. it is of particular significance that both have appointed upper chambers. canadian senate and the law face difficult questions of reform. the future is an issue that often preoccupies commentators and politicians on either side of the atlantic. i know this is a matter of particular interest. there are no easy solutions. withll watch developments great interest. as i am sure you will in order
to watch developments here and we watch of them there. who knows. where one chamber goes the other may follow. i am happy to say that the administration of both chambers enjoy a highly productive working relationship. currently enriched by discussions over our crumbling elementary buildings. speak with your senate. prime minister harper, it has been a great honor for us to welcome you to our parliament. that the rest of your visit to the uk and elsewhere in europe will prove both valuable and constructive. thank you. [applause]